Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/6/2016

Pritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajwa Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

SH R. S GRewal

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 06 of 2016

                                           Date of institution : 11.01.2016.                                                 Date of decision    : 12.08.2016

Pritpal Singh, aged about 39 years, son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of village Kharoura, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Bajwa Electronics, Opposite New Service Station(Petrol Pump), Bassi Road, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor/Authorized person.
2. LG Electronics India Private Limited, Registered office at Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida- 201306(UP), through its MD/authorized person.
3. LG Electronics India Private Limited, having its Branch and Remote Area Office at village Jhande, near Badowal Railway Station, opposite Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Remote Area Officer/authorized person.
4. Gee Dee Services, Shop No.2& 3, Makhan Colony, opposite Gurudwara Jyoti Sarup Sahib, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized person Gurvinder Dhiman.

…..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh.R.S.Grewal, Adv. counsel for the complainant.                         Sh. Anil Gupta, Adv.Cl. for OP No.4.                                                Opposite parties No.1,2& 3 exparte.

 ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Pritpal Singh, aged about 39 years, son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of village Kharoura, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as "the OPs") under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant purchased one 310L Double Door Frost Free LG Refrigerator from OP No.1, vide bill No.12015 dated 13.04.2015, for Rs.33,000/-.  The OPs gave one year guarantee in respect of the said refrigerator and 10 years guarantee in respect of the compressor of the same. It was also assured by the OPs that in case of any defect, the said refrigerator would be replaced with new one. After purchase of the refrigerator, when the complainant used the same, he noticed that said refrigerator did not produce/froze the ice and even it was not producing the required cooling, which resulted in spoiling of eatable articles including milk and other drinks placed in the said refrigerator.  Then after 2-3 days the complainant informed OP No.1 about the defective refrigerator. OP  No.1 send its mechanic alleging that the said mechanic has been sent by the LG Company, who removed the defect in the said refrigerator. The said mechanic has disclosed that he belongs to OP No.4, which is an authorized service centre of OP No. 2 and 3.  The refrigerator worked for one week only and after that it again started giving the same results. Thereafter, in the first week of May 2015, the complainant again contacted OP No.1 on telephone and requested to replace the said refrigerator with a new one. But OP No.1 did not take any step for the replacement of said refrigerator. The complainant visited OP No.1 a number of times and even lodged a complaint at the toll free number of the company but the defect was not removed.  On 14.05.2015, one mechanic of OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and after checking the refrigerator, he told that there is major defect in the same, which can only be removed by the expert at the authorized workshop of the company. The said mechanic had taken away the said refrigerator with him and also issued a job sheet dated 14.05.2015 in this regard. Since the said date i.e.14.05.2015 the refrigerator has not been returned so far to the complainant and the same is still lying in one of the authorized workshops of the company. The complainant also approached OP No.3 and requested to do the needful for replacement of the said defective refrigerator but in vain.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.33,000/- i.e. price of the said refrigerator and Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for mental tension, pain, agony, undue and unnecessary harassment being suffered by the complainant.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, but OPs No.1 to 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte.

4.                   The complaint is contested by OP No.4, who filed the written reply. In reply to the complaint OP No.4 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and the complainant has filed the present complaint with mala-fide intention, just to harass and blackmail OP No.4. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that despite making so many phone calls and writing a letter, the complainant has not come to collect the refrigerator from it. The refrigerator in question has no manufacturing defect. There were minor defects in the refrigerator and the same were removed. The refrigerator is now working properly and it will work as per full satisfaction of the complainant in future. It is also stated by OP No.4 that in future if any defect occurs in the said refrigerator, the company will change the same with new one. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence copy of bill Ex. C-1, copy of job sheet Ex. C-2, his affidavit Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurvinder Singh Dhiman as Ex. OP4/1 and closed the evidence.

6.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased new refrigerator, vide bill No.12015 dated 13.04.2015 for Rs.33,000/- from OP No.1, who is retailer and OP No.2 is the manufacturer and OP No.4 is the authorized service centre of OP No.2. Just after 2-3 days of purchase, it developed some defect, which was removed by the mechanic of the OPs. After a week, there was another defect. It was found that the refrigerator was not producing/freezing water to make ice and it was also not producing the required cooling. The complainant visited OP No.1 many times but he did not taken any action, then complaint was lodged at the toll free number of the company. Then mechanic of OP No.2 visited the house of complainant and after checking, he told that there was some major defect and only this could be rectified by an expert at the authorized workshop. The said mechanic took away the refrigerator with him for repair and it has not been returned till date. The complainant also approached OP No.3 and requested  to do the needful but in vain. Thus Ld. counsel pleaded for acceptance of this complaint since the act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service, gross negligence, unfair trade practice and has caused harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant.

7.                   The OPs were given due notice and summons were duly served as per tracking report of the postal department. OPs No.1 to 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte. Their non-appearance is nothing but an admission from their own side. The complaint is contested by OP No.4. The Ld. counsel for OP No.4 argued that the refrigerator has been repaired and defects were removed and there was no manufacturing defect. The complainant was asked through phone calls and by writing a letter to collect his refrigerator but he has not come to collect the same. The Ld. counsel also submitted that OP No.4 is ready to replace the refrigerator with new one if any defect occurs in future and thus pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submission of the Ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs have failed to satisfy the consumer by properly removing the defects in the first instance and then by not replacing the refrigerator. It is strange that the product should not function properly just within few days of the purchase and the consumer is debarred from making use of refrigerator in the summer months of May/June, when it is most needed. The refrigerator is purchased in April and it goes out of order in April itself and then again in May and then it was taken to the workshop of service centre, which proves that there was some major/inherent defect in the refrigerator i.e. why it was not functioning properly.  Already two summer seasons have passed by.

9.                   In view of our above discussion, we accept the complaint and find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by selling defective produce to the consumer and thus causing mental agony and harassment.

10.                 Accordingly, the OPs are directed to refund the purchase price of refrigerator i.e. Rs.33,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is also held entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rs. Five thousands) including cost of litigation and damages for unfair trade practice, harassment and mental agony. Orders are to be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulated period, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till its realization.

11.                 The arguments in the present case were heard on 05.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 12.08.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member