Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/319

Ankit Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bansal Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         319      

Date of Institution :    4.11.2016

Date of Decision :       1.06.2017

Ankit Bansal aged about 22 years son of Naresh Kumar, r/o Near Railway Station, Ram Ashram Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura and District Faridkot.                                                                                                    

 .....Complainant

Versus

1. Bansal Agencies, Near Railway Station, Ram Ashram Road, Kotkapura, through its Prop. Roshan Lal.
2. Farid Care Centre, Malout Road, Opp. Ajmer Palace, Muktsar through its prop./Authorized Signatory.
3. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd. A wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager/Incharge/MD.
4. Reserve Logistics Company Pvt Ltd (Green Dust), Khasra 337, 1^st Floor, Chaudhary Satbir Complex, Near CRC-2 Sultanpur MG Road, New Delhi-110030.

           ..........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:  Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                 Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Mandeep Chanana, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3,

               Sh Ravi Ajmer, Representative of  OP-4,

               OP-1 Exparte.

 

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to repair the refrigerator or to replace the same and for also directing him to refund the amount of Rs.6335/- and Rs.500/-illegally charged by OP-2 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.30,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one 635 litres refrigerator from OP-1, who is dealer of OP-4 vide bill no.191 dated 6.02.2016 for Rs.48,000/-. Said refrigerator is manufactured by OP-3 and OP-2 is the service centre and OP-4 is the sales contractor of OP-3. At the time of purchasing, Ops gave warranty of three years for compressor and one year for remaining parts. It is submitted that refrigerator in question was giving problems since its purchase and first complaint regarding its improper working was lodged with Ops on 19.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 and on his complaint, OP-2 visited the premises of complainant and checked the refrigerator in question and due to some problem in its compressor, changed the same and charged Rs.6335/-vide invoice no.1096 dated 21.09.2016 though OP-2 was not authorized to charge from complainant the charges for changing the compressor which was covered under warranty period, but despite this, refrigerator in question did not work properly and kept giving troubles. Complainant lodged second complaint regarding its non functioning on 26.09.2016 and on it OP-2 visited his place on 28.09.2016 and after checking he changed the  capillaries of refrigerator in question and further charged Rs.500/-from  complainant vide bill no.1023 dated 28.09.2016, which is quite unlawful and illegal. It is further submitted that despite all this, refrigerator in question did not work properly and complainant requested Ops many times to replace the same or to set it right, but they refused to pay any heed to his requests and have failed to resolve the issue. Even legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel also bore no fruit. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for directing OPs to replace the refrigerator in question and for also directing them to refund the amount of Rs.6335/- and Rs.500/-illegally charged by OP-2 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.30,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                         Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and present complaint was admitted and  vide order dated 8.11.2016, notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                    On receipt of notice, OP- 1  filed reply wherein admitted that complainant purchased the refrigerator in question from them against proper bill and also admitted the fact that the refrigerator in question was giving problems to complainant and complainant approached him and brought to his notice complaint regarding his refrigerator. As OP-2 is to provide the services regarding repair and OP-4 is to bear the cost of said repairs, therefore, answering OP forwarded the complaint of complainant to Company. It is also admitted that OP-2 changed the compressor of the refrigerator in question and charged some amount from him, but if there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP-2, then answering OP is not responsible for same. OP-1 again admitted that complaints regarding defects in the refrigerator in question are made by complainant but no cause of action arises against answering OP. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5                                         In their reply, OP-2 and 3 took preliminary objections that there is a contract between OP-3 and 4 and as per their agreement or contract, OP-3 has to sell its second products to OP-4 and in that case, guarantee/ warranty if any is to be given by OP-4 and this fact was also in the notice of complainant. It is asserted that OP-1 purchased the refrigerator in question from OP-4 and not from Company and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them. It is further averred that complainant has concealed the material fact from this Forum that he got repaired the refrigerator in question from OP-2 twice prior to present complaint and himself intentionally did not submit the bill regarding repair to OP-4, who is liable to reimburse the repair charges to complainant. however, on merits, OP-2 and 3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 6                                  OP-4 took preliminary objections in reply that present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is a gross abuse of process of law and is misjoinder for not impleading necessary parties. However, on merits ld counsel for OP-4 submitted that complainant purchased the said refrigerator from OP-1 for Rs.48,000/- and complaints regarding its non functioning were received. First complaint regarding non cooling of the refrigerator in question was received on 25.02.2016 and it was duly redressed, thereafter second complaint regarding defect in the refrigerator in question was received on 11.04.2016, which was again redressed and call was closed in satisfaction. Third complaint was received on 22.09.2016 in response to which compressor of the refrigerator in question was changed and gas charging was done, but complainant did not submit the bill worth Rs.6335/-for reimbursement to answering OP, which is still awaited by OP-4. It is further  submitted that fourth complaint regarding problem in the refrigerator in question is received on 17.11.2016, but for Redressal of same, complainant is required to part with his product for thorough checking, but complainant is unwilling to do so. It is further averred that OP-4 is still ready to offer services to complainant free of cost and also ready to reimburse the bill of Rs.6335/-, but complainant has filed the present complaint only to harassment the answering OP. He has refuted all the other allegations and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7                                       Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-10 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-2  and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Surjit Singh as Ex OP-2, 3/1 and documents Ex OP-2,3/2 to 3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-2 and 3. Representative of OP-4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vijender Kumar as Ex OP-4/1 and documents Ex OP-4/2 to Op-4/8 and then, also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-4.

9                                                 There is no evidence on behalf of OP-1 as after filing written statement, Op-1 did not appear in the Forum to follow up the case. Despite several calls and long waiting till several dates, when OP-1 did not appear in the Forum, then, vide order dated 28.03.2017, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.

10                                                    We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

11                                            Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that he purchased a 635 litres refrigerator from OP-1 vide bill dated 6.02.2016 for Rs.48,000/-.  At the time of purchasing, Ops gave warranty of three years for compressor and one year for remaining parts. It is submitted that refrigerator in question was giving problems since purchase and first complaint regarding its improper working was lodged with Ops on 19.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 and on his complaint, OP-2 visited the premises of complainant and checked the refrigerator in question and due to some problem in its compressor, changed the same and charged Rs.6335/-vide invoice no.1096 dated 21.09.2016 though OP-2 was not authorized to charge from complainant the charges for changing the compressor which was covered under warranty period, but despite this, refrigerator in question did not work properly and kept giving troubles. Complainant lodged second complaint regarding its non functioning on 26.09.2016 and on it OP-2 visited his place on 28.09.2016 and after checking he changed the  capillaries of refrigerator in question and further charged Rs.500/-from  complainant vide bill no.1023 dated 28.09.2016, which is quite unlawful and illegal. It is further submitted that despite all this, refrigerator in question did not work properly and complainant requested Ops many times to replace the same or to set it right, but they refused to pay any heed to his requests and have failed to resolve the issue. Even legal notice issued by complainant bore no fruit. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.                           

12                                    Though OP-1 stands exparte in present case, but pleadings taken by OP-1 in reply are considered as arguments on behalf of OP-1. As per OP-1,  complainant purchased the refrigerator in question from them against proper bill and also admitted the fact that the refrigerator in question was giving problems for  which complainant approached him and brought to his notice complaint regarding his refrigerator.  It is further argued that OP-2 is to provide the services regarding repair and OP-4 is to bear the cost of said repairs, therefore, answering OP-1 forwarded the complaint of complainant to Company. It is also admitted that OP-2 changed the compressor of the refrigerator in question and charged some amount from him, but if there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP-2, then OP-1 is not responsible for same. It is again admitted that complaints regarding defects in the refrigerator in question are made by complainant but no cause of action arises against answering OP. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13                                  Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 brought before the Forum that there is a contract between OP-3 and 4 and as per their agreement or contract, OP-3 has to sell its second products to OP-4 and in that case, guarantee/ warranty if any is to be given by OP-4 and this fact was also in the notice of complainant. It is asserted that OP-1 purchased the refrigerator in question from OP-4 and not from Company and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them. It is further averred that complainant has concealed the material fact from this Forum that he got repaired the refrigerator in question from OP-2 twice prior to present complaint and himself intentionally did not submit the bill regarding repair to OP-4, who is liable to reimburse the repair charges to complainant. OP-2 and 3 have denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 14                                  OP-4 argued that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is a gross abuse of process of law and is misjoinder for not impleading necessary parties. OP-4 submitted that complainant purchased the said refrigerator from OP-1 for Rs.48,000/- and complaints regarding its non functioning were received. It is argued that first complaint regarding non cooling of the refrigerator in question was received on 25.02.2016 and it was duly redressed, thereafter second complaint regarding defect in the refrigerator in question was received on 11.04.2016, which was again redressed and call was closed in satisfaction. Third complaint was received on 22.09.2016 in response to which compressor of the refrigerator in question was changed and gas charging was done, but complainant did not submit the bill worth Rs.6335/-for reimbursement to answering OP, which is still awaited by OP-4. It is further  submitted that fourth complaint regarding problem in the refrigerator in question is received on 17.11.2016, but for Redressal of same, complainant is required to part with his product for thorough checking, but complainant is unwilling to do so. It is further averred that OP-4 is still ready to offer services to complainant free of cost and also ready to reimburse the bill of Rs.6335/-, but complainant has filed the present complaint only to harassment the answering OP. He has refuted all the other allegations and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

15                                 From the above discussion, it is observed that case of complainant is that the refrigerator purchased by him was defective one and despite repeated complaints and thorough checking by Ops, it did not function properly up to the satisfaction of complainant. Moreover, Op-2 illegally charged amount of Rs.6335/- and Rs.500/- from complainant for providing repair services though product in question was under warranty condition and complainant was entitled for free services. He has prayed for replacement of refrigerator alongwith compensation. In reply, OP-1 to  3 all have denied allegations of complainant and asserted that responsibility for providing warranty or free services lies with OP-4 as there is a contract between OP-2, 3 and OP-4. On the other hand OP-4 asserted that complaints brought before him regarding defects in refrigerator have been duly  redressed and he is still ready to reimburse the amount charged by OP-2 from complainant to him on presentation of bills by complainant to OP-4. He has also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

16                             From the careful perusal of pleadings, evidence placed on record and  thorough application of mind, this Forum is of considered view that there is no dispute regarding purchase of refrigerator in question. Moreover, it is also admitted by parties that refrigerator in question had some defects and on complaints by complainant, OP-2 checked the same and changed the compressor and also did necessary repairs. OP-4 has specifically admitted that amount charged by OP-2 for rendering services is liable to be reimbursed  by him and offered to provide services free of cost as per warranty conditions.  There is a contract between Company and OP-4 that for sales made by OP-4, only OP-4 would be responsible for guarantee and warranty or for any other defect and OP-4 has also duly admitted this fact. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-4 and stands dismissed against OP-1 to 3. OP-4 is directed to replace the defective refrigerator in question of complainant with new one of same model. Op-4 is further directed to refund the amount of Rs.6335/- and Rs.500/- charged by OP-2 from him and to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated:1.06.2017

Member                                   President                                          (P Singla)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)