BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 155 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 21.11.2014
   Date of final order: 08.06.2016

Raj Kumar Kathuria s/o Sh. Jit Ram r/o Gali No.1 Shyam Nagar, ward No.7 Patiala Chowk, Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Anand Electronic SCF No.1 &2 near rani talab, Jind through its proprietor.
Whirlpool of India Ltd. 28 N.I.T. Faridabad through its Managing Director.
Kavi Ram Trading Company H.No.553 Housing Board Colony, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind. 
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. T.S. Dhull Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Dalbir Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Sh. Rahul Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.2.
          Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Whirlpool Refrigerator bearing Model-14202 SR INE13060054 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide bill dated 26.9.2013 from opposite party No.1 which is manufactured by opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 is service centre.  The opposite party No.1 has 
            Raj Kumar Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….2…
given 5 years warranty of motor and one year of all other parts. The refrigerator of the complainant worked properly for about 3 months from the date of its purchase and thereafter it stopped cooling. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 regarding the defect of refrigerator but the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to take the refrigerator of service centre i.e opposite party No.3. Thereafter, the complainant informed the opposite party No.3 in this regard but the defects of the refrigerator were not removed by opposite party No.3. The complainant lodged many complaints with opposite party No.2 on its toll free number for removing the defects of refrigerator but the opposite party No.2 did not send any engineer/mechanic  for getting repaired the refrigerator. The complainant could not use his refrigerator since  it has stopped for making ice and providing adequate cooling and become idle and useless. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the refrigerator with new one  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the  separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 has  stated in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint;  the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On 
                Raj Kumar Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….3…
merits, it is contended that the answering opposite party was never assured to the complainant that the refrigerator shall be replaced rather it was to be repaired or the defective part was to be replaced.  The answering opposite party is not responsible for removing the defect of refrigerator and authorized service centre is responsible for removing the defect of the refrigerator in question. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering   opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.
3.    Opposite party No.2 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is contended that all the complaints of the complainant properly attended by the Engineer of the answering opposite party and essential repairs as well as the replacement of the parts were made. The complainant is twisting and distorting the fact for his own benefits and trying to mislead this Forum.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering   opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.
4.    Notice issued to opposite party No.3 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.3. Hence, opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 19.3.2015.
5.     In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1 and  copy of  cash memo Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 has  produced the affidavit of 
                Raj Kumar Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….4…
Branch Service Manager Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.1 has  produced the affidavit of Sh. Anand Jain authorised signatory of OP1 Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence. 

6.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and  also perused the record placed of file. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that when the refrigerator in question became defective he made  four complaints to the opposite party through toll free number HR0614002881.HR0814000146, HR814005299, HR814003410. The opposite party No.2 admitted in the written statement that they have received the complaints but alleging that their service engineer has promptly attended the above said complaints and essential repair was done but  the opposite party No.2 failed to produce any job card regarding above said complaints. Besides this the opposite party No.2 has failed to file any affidavit of any engineer who have attended the complaint and rectified the defects of the refrigerator. So, adverse inference  is drawn against the opposite parties that they have not removed the defect in the refrigerator. However, at the time of making the complainant, the refrigerator in question is warranty period. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs directing the opposite parties  to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with new one of the same model and capacity within 30 days after receiving the certified copy of order. Cost is assessed as Rs.2200/- to the complainant, failing which
                    Raj Kumar Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….5…
the complainant is at liberty to take the legal action against the opposite parties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 8.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

        
Raj Kumar Vs. M/S Anand Elect..
                
Present:  Sh. T.S. Dhull Adv. for complainant.
          Sh.Dalbir Sharma Adv. for Opposite Party No1
      Sh Rahul Sharma     Adv. for opposite Party No. 2
              Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 

             Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                             President,
Member        Member                                  DCDRF, Jind
                                     8.6.2016