Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/243

Tilak Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electronics Point and another - Opp.Party(s)

Tulsi Dass

12 May 2022

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        243 of 2019

Date of Institution :    03.10.2019

Date of Decision :      12.05.2022

Tilak Raj aged about 40 years son of Kanshi Ram resident of Jatinder Chowk, Mohalla Tallian, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Electronics Point, through its Authorized Signatory, Near Raj Mahal, Faridkot, District Faridkot.
2. L G Electronics, Head Office 51, Udyog Vihar, Extension Ecotek II, Greater Noida, UP, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                    ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

 

cc no.-243 of 2019

 

Present:      Sh Tulsi Dass, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                    OP-1 Exparte.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to replace the defective refrigerator or to refund the cost price of Rs.48,000/- and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.30,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one refrigerator make LG model T432FPZU from OP-1 against proper bill on cash payment of Rs.48,000/-on 27.07.2019, but since the day of purchase it was not working properly. It did not make cooling properly. Complainant reported the matter to OP-1 who assured that there is no problem in refrigerator and it would work properly after some time, but problem still persisted and its cooling was not proper. Complainant waited for several days, but it was not working properly and then, complainant again approached OP-1

cc no.-243 of 2019

and on his advice, he got registered complaint at toll free number of OP-2, which was duly replied by OP-2 through text message and OP-2 also sent their technician and service engineer at his house to repair the defective refrigerator, but they failed to repair the same. Thereafter, complainant again approached OP-1 and made several requests to him to replace the said defective fridge, but all in vain. Grievance of the complainant is that despite several visits and requests made by complainant to repair the said fridge, OP-1 did not bother to pay any heed to his problem and did not do anything needful. Complainant also made request to refund the cost price of said product, but OP-1 flatly refused to do repair and to make refund, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant made many requests to Ops to change the same with some other batch or model, but all his efforts to get it replaced, bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief of replacement of said refrigerator. Hence, the complaint.

cc no.-243 of 2019

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 09.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OPs.

4                                               Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to opposite party no.1 through Peon, but nobody appeared on behalf of OP-1 either in person or through counsel on date fixed. It appears that OP-1 is not interested to contest the allegations levelled by complainant. Case was called out several times since morning, but nobody appeared on behalf of OP-1 despite several calls till 4 O’clock. Therefore, vide order dated 25.11.2019, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.

5                                       On receipt of the notice, OP-2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as it has been filed on false, frivolous and wrong facts. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission and he has not come to the Commission with clean hands. There is no defect in product purchased by complainant. This Commission has no  territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. It is averred that complaint is liable to be dismissed on

cc no.-243 of 2019

the ground that it is just an abuse of the process of law and is filed to extract money from the OPs. It is further averred that when complainant lodged complaint with answering OP regarding low cooling in refrigerator, the same was duly attended and they immediately sent their Service Engineer who after thoroughly inspecting the said product found that there was no problem in refrigerator in question and its all parameters were within normal range. At the time of checking, it was working perfectly and was in good condition. Complainant has filed a false complaint and have unnecessarily dragged them in present litigation. It is further averred that complainant has not placed on record any expert evidence to prove his allegations. Refund or replacement sought by complainant is not permissible as there is no defect in refrigerator purchased by complainant. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. However, on merits, OP-2 has admitted that product in question was sold by OP-1 and it is manufactured by them, but have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect on the ground that refrigerator in question is in good working condition and there is no defect in it as complainant has filed false complaint only to extract money. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too have been refuted

cc no.-243 of 2019

and denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissed of complaint with costs.

6                                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                           The ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shrikant, Area Sales Manager of L G Company as Ex.OP-2/1 and document Ex OP-2/2  and then, closed the evidence on behalf of O-2.

8                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OP-2 and have carefully gone through and perused the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                                            We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator, which has some defect. It did not make cooling properly. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of Ops and made several requests to remove the defect or to change the same, but Ops paid no

cc no.-243 of 2019

heed to his requests. In reply, stand of OP-2 is that there is no manufacturing defect in said fridge. On complaint filed by complainant about low cooling in refrigerator, they immediately sent their Service Engineer who after thoroughly checking the refrigerator, found that there was no problem in refrigerator in question and it was working perfectly and was in good condition. Complainant has filed false complaint against them and moreover, he has not placed on record any expert evidence to prove his allegations. Refund or replacement sought by him is not permissible as there is no defect in refrigerator purchased by complainant. All the allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

10                                                   To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record copy of bill dated 27.07.2019 Ex C-2 that fully proves the fact that complainant purchased said refrigerator from OP-1 on 27.07.2019 for Rs.48,000/- by making cash payment. Ex C-3 is the copy of text message sent by OP-2 to complainant on 2^nd September that further proves the allegation of complainant that refrigerator in question was not working perfectly. It is observed that complainant purchased the said refrigerator on 27.07.2019 and as per Ex C-1, there is no doubt to this fact. There is also no doubt to the

cc no.-243 of 2019

contention of complainant that he might have approached OP-1 seller for making complaint regarding less cooling by said refrigerator. Text message Ex C-3 dated second September also proves his pleading that he got registered complaint with Company against low cooling of said refrigerator. Thus, had the product been giving efficient cooling or if it was working properly, then, complainant would have no need to file the present complaint. Moreover, due to some problem in said product, OP-2 sent their mechanic to remove the defect, but it was negligence on the part of OP-2 in not rectifying the defect. If OPs had given efficient services then, fate of complaint would have been different or there would have been no complaint at all. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence, authenticity of which is beyond any doubt.

11                                              In view of above discussion, this Commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 in not removing the defect and complainant had to suffer huge harassment due to non repair of said refrigerator by them. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP-2, therefore, complaint in had is hereby allowed against OP-2 and OP-2 is directed to replace the refrigerator in question with new one of same model with fresh warranty and is also directed to pay Rs.2000/-to

cc no.-243 of 2019

complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. As OP-1 is mere seller and he has no role in making repair or replacement, therefore, complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission on:

Dated: 12.05.2022

 (Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                         

  Member                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.-243 of 2019

Tilak Raj       Vs      Electronics Point

 

Present:      Sh Tulsi Dass, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                    OP-1 Exparte.

                    Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on

Dated :12.05.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member