Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Presiding Member
1. Narinder Kumar Sodhi, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that the complainant purchased a new fridge of Samsung RT39M553858-TP-SAMSUNG-FF vide invoice No.G30303 and bill dated 4.10.2017 from opposite parties No1 & 2 for a sum of Rs. 44000/- . The said fridge is product of Samsung which is opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer. The said fridge was sold with guarantee/warranty of 2 years from the date of purchase and guarantee of compressor of fridge is of five to eleven years.
2. From the first day of its purchase the said fridge was not working properly and cooling capacity of the fridge is not good and sufficient and there is major manufacturing defect in it as water always collected in the fruit basket of the fridge. The said defect was not removed by the technicians of opposite parties after visiting so many times to the house of the complainant. In this regard complainant sent his complaints through his mobile to the opposite parties so many times but no fruitful result has come forth and the manufacturing defect of the abovesaid fridge is not removed by the opposite parties after its repair so many times and lastly on 18.6.2018 the technician of opposite parties visited the house of the complainant but the said manufacturing defect was not removed by them and till date the said defect persists in the fridge. The complainant requested so many times for the change of the abovesaid fridge with new one but opposite parties denied the same. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice which has caused mental tension, pain, agony, harassment as well as monetary loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite parties be directed to replace the said defective fridge with new one or in the alternative to refund the sale price of Rs. 44000/- to the complainant ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not opt to put in appearance despite service, as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Opposite party No.3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions because as per record of the answering opposite party there is no complaint lodge with regard to the fridge of the complainant till date. The complainant is alleging that his fridge is defective but he has not lodged any complaint with the answering opposite party or its authorized service centre. The complainant has not reported any kind of problem in his alleged fridge with the answering opposite party till date which shows that the product in question is perfectly working. Moreover the complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that the obligation of the answering opposite party under warranty is to set right the refrigerator by repairing or replacing the defective part within one year of its purchase as the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase. The product has been purchased on 4.10.2017 and warranty period of one year expired on 3.10.2018 and during this period the complainant has not reported any kind of problem in the product. The answering opposite party through this reply requested the forum to allow the service engineer of the answering opposite party to visit the premises of the complainant and check the refrigerator of the complainant and submit the report before this Forum regarding the present condition of the refrigerator . Therefore, there is no deficiency or breach of contract on the part of opposite party No.3. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
5. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his self attested affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice dated 4.10.2017 Ex.C-1.
6. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the complainant as well as Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant purchased a fridge of Samsung vide Invoice dated 4.10.2017 for Rs. 44000/- from opposite parties No.1 & 2, whereas opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of the fridge . It is the case of the complainant that from the very first day of the purchase of the fridge the same is having cooling problem and the water got collected in the fruit basket . In this regard complainant made so many complaints with the opposite parties but till date opposite parties have failed to repair the said refrigerator.
8. On the other hand Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 has vehemently contended that complainant never approached the answering opposite party with regard to the said defect in the fridge as no written complaint was ever made with the answering opposite party nor the complainant approached the service centre of opposite party No.3. However, opposite party No. 3 stated in its reply as well as before this Forum that the answering opposite party be allowed to send their service engineer to the premises of the complainant and check the refrigerator of the complainant and submit report before this Forum regarding the present condition of the refrigerator. We are of the considered opinion that no doubt the complainant has not placed on record any complaint with regard to the defective refrigerator but as the fridge/refrigerator has been purchased on 4.10.2017 and the present complaint has been filed before this Forum on 26.9.2018 i.e. well within the warranty period and no one can come to the Forum if the party has no grievance with the other party. Moreover it is settled principle of law that in case, two plausible views were available, under given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer. Reference in this regard can be had to “Kulwinder Singh Versus LIC of India “ 2007(1) CLT 303 (Punjab) wherein it has been held that “where two views are possible, the one, which favour the consumer should be taken”.we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is liable to be disposed of by giving certain directions to the opposite party No.3.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is disposed of with the direction to the opposite party No.3 to get repair the refrigerator of the complainant free of costs. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
