Haryana

Kurukshetra

71/2017

Vijay Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electronic World - Opp.Party(s)

Prem Sagar

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.71 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 29.03.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 11.02.2019.

Vijay Garg wife of Sh. Rakesh Garg, resident of House No.956, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Electronic World, 139, Dyal Singh Colony (Ground Floor), Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor/Partner.
2. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office: 6^th Floor “SPIC BUILDING” ANNEXE, No.88, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-32, through its Managing Director.
3. Bhagwati Refrigerator, Shop No.4, Jangra Dharamsala, near Chhota Railway Station, Kurukshetra (Service-Centre) through its proprietor.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Prem Sagar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OPs.No.2 & 3.

                Op No.1 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Smt. Vijay Garg against Electronic World and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a refrigerator of Panasonic, Model NR-BW414YS for a sum of Rs.36,000/- from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.1789 dt. 22.02.2012.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said refrigerator was giving problems of cooling and it stopped working automatically.  It is further alleged that despite repair several times by the Ops, the said refrigerator was not working properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant has made repeated requests to the Ops since 17.05.2012 and also made complaints on 17.05.2012, 07.09.2012, 15.09.2012, 03.06.2014, 01.07.2014, 20.09.2014 and 24.09.2014 but the Ops have failed to do the needful.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective refrigerator with the new one or to refund the entire price of the refrigerator alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.2 & 3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 17.05.2017.  Ops No.2 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant regarding his complaint about the alleged refrigerator has approached the company on 13.03.2012 for the installation of the unit and the engineer of service-centre has visited the house of complainant and required adjustment done by the engineer and the unit of the complainant was working in complete O.K. condition.  After that the complainant again approached the service-centre on 03.06.2014 and the engineer of the company visited the house of complainant and the bulb of the unit got replaced and the unit was working fine.  After that the complainant again approached the answering Ops on 24.09.2014 and again, the engineer of the company thoroughly checked the unit and the PCB of the unit got replaced and the unit was working properly.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that he had purchased refrigerator from the Op No.1 on 22.02.2012.  The said refrigerator was giving problem from the very beginning.  The complainant had approached the Ops several times but the Ops did not remove the defects in the unit (refrigerator).  It is further contended by the counsel of complainant that the Ops have given five year warranty for the aforesaid unit (refrigerator).  There is deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 contended that it is admitted fact that they have give five year warranty for the said unit but there is one year fully warranty of the unit in question but four years warranty for the compressor only.

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, it is clear that the unit in question was purchased on 22.02.2012 and the complainant approached the Ops within one year of warranty for the defects in the unit (refrigerator).  The complainant made several complaints to the Ops regarding defective refrigerator but the Ops did not remove the defects from the unit in question.  The complainant also got served the legal notice dt. 02.12.2016 (Ex.C3) upon the Ops but despite legal notice, the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.  Hence, the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and they are deficient while rendering services to the complainant. 

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective refrigerator of the complainant with the new one of the same company.  However, it is made clear that if the said refrigerator is not available with the Ops, then the Ops will pay the cost of purchased refrigerator to the complainant.  The complainant is also directed to deposit the defective refrigerator alongwith accessories with the service-centre of Ops.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 11.02.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.