BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  289 of 2015

Date of Institution: 07.05.2015

Date of Decision: 19.11.2015

Sunpreet Singh, resident of 240, Patti Bhaniwal, Sultanwind Pind, Chacha Chiba Wali Gali, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. Electronic World, Chowk Farid, Nerar Axis Bank, Amritsar through its Partner/Proprietor/Person Over All Incharge
2. Samsung India Pvt.Ltd., SCO 35, HUDA Main Market, Gurgaon, Sector 31, Haryana through its Director/Managing Director/Principal Officer/Person over all Incharge, service be effected through its authorized service centre Raja Enterprises, 29-Chowk Farid, Amritsar through its Proprietor/Incharge Harinder  Singh

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Vimal Sharma,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party No.2:        Ms.Preeti Mahajan,Advocate

              For Opposite parties No.1  : Ex-parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sunpreet Singh  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2 vide bill No. R 229 dated 10.5.2014 for Rs. 28700/- . According to the complainant, from the very beginning of purchase of the said Refrigerator, the same is giving trouble one after the other. After about 2-3 days of purchase of said fridge, the same was not giving proper cooling and even the vegetable box was found to be joined by some adhesive material. Complainant has alleged that the fridge was also creating some unnecessary noise on its running.  On 20.5.2014 complainant lodged complaint with opposite party No.1, but nobody came to check the said fridge. Thereafter on 27.5.2014 another complaint was made to the opposite parties and upon this Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Representative  was sent by the opposite parties , who checked the system of said fridge and assured that the said fridge will give trouble free service and will also give proper cooling. But  the assurance proved to be false  and the said defect was not removed  and the fridge remained defective. Thereafter complainant made several complaints on 18.6.2014, 11.7.2014, 20.8.2014  and lastly on 24.4.2015 with the request either to remove the said defect from the fridge or to replace the fridge with new one, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the entire sale price of Rs. 28700/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.  or to replace the refrigerator with new one.  Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite party No.1 did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.6.2015.
3. On notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the refrigerator in question was perfectly working and there was no such problem of low cooling. The last complaint was lodged by the complainant on 18.10.2014 with regard to cooling problem. The service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and thoroughly checked the refrigerator and no defect was found  as all the parameters were within normal range and complainant was satisfied with the performance of the refrigerator. It was submitted that as and when complainant lodged complaint regarding the refrigerator, the same was duly attended and complainant was satisfied with the working of the refrigerator. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect  nor filed any documentary evidence  in support of alleged submission. It was submitted that complainant has sought refund or replacement of refrigerator which is not permissible as such relief can only be granted if defect during the period of warranty is of such a nature that cannot be cured or repaired. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.
5. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sunil Bhargav, General Manager Ex.OP2/1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  complainant and opposite party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.

7.

8.

9.

10. However, as the complainant has filed the present complaint within the warranty period of one year. So this complaint is disposed of with the direction to the opposite parties to send proper mechanic/service engineer at the premises of the complainant or may take the refrigerator to their workshop and make it fully functional without any defect, to the satisfaction of the complainant  without charging any amount/fee from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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.

Dated: 19.11.2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                    President

/R/                             (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)         (Anoop Sharma)

                                                 Member                            Member