Surinder Mohan (President)

1 Gulshan Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Brief facts of the complaint are that on 26/10/10 complainant purchased a Electrolux refrigerator from opposite party No.2 at Phagwara by paying Rs.7400/- vide bill No.27 dated 26/10/10 That Sunil Syal of opposite party No.2 influenced the complainant to purchase refrigerator from his shop and he showed refrigerators of different Companies having 180 liters capacity and told the complainant that though he is authorized dealer and agency holder of many firms still complainant should go for buying Electrolux refrigerator as it was better than others and was trouble free and that Electrolux Company's mechanics and engineers were very easily accessible and were available just at a distance of a phone call. Sunil Syal told the complainant that refrigerator would be sent on rickshaw alongwith mechanic who will install the refrigerator and will also handover bill after fittings. The excitement of new fridge was shuttered when at the time of installation of fridge, father of the complainant pointed out that capacity of refrigerator was written as 173 liters despite the fact that complainant had asked for 180 liters fridge. Complainant immediately called opposite party No.2 but somehow the official maneuvered the situation and told the complainant that there was no difference between 180 and 173 liters refrigerator Complainant got another shock when he felt electric shock while opening the fridge. Complainant immediately approached opposite party No.2 where the official firstly refused to accept that current was passing through the fridge but later on assured the complainant to get the fault repaired the very next day but did not do anything for getting the said fault mended. That it was only after several days that opposite party No.2 sent one mechanic who told that this happens with every new refrigerator and that after using it for few days, passing of current will be removed. Complainant was not satisfied with the reply and fault still persisted regarding which complainant and his father made several and continuous requests to opposite party No.2 who took the matter casually and after few days again sent another mechanic who after checking told that there was fault in the compressor . Complainant got the compressor changed from opposite party No.2. After changing of compressor, current still passed through the fridge and even the maid of the complainant told that while moping the floor she felt electric shock from the refrigerator and it appeared as if it was pulling her towards it. Complainant was perturbed after buying referigerator from opposite party No.2 and when he went to the shop of opposite party No.2, Sunil Syal spoke to him and his father in offensive manner and told them that there was earthing problem in his house and they should first get earthing done. On 10/11/10, complainant arranged an electrician for getting earthing done. The said electrician told the complainant that there was no earthing problem and complainant asked him to get it redone and paid Rs.3000/- and get the earthing done at his house but the problem of current still continued. Complainant again lodged his complaint with opposite party No.2 as well as on the website of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 again lingered on the matter on some or other lame excuse and ultimately on 24/11/10 sent a mechanic who on inquiry revealed that he was mechanic from Samsung and does part time work for shops having no agency and he also disclosed that opposite party No.2 was not having agency of Electrolux. After examining the refrigerator the mechanic told the complainant that fridge cannot be repaired as it has a manufacturing defect and that he had been sold defective refrigerator deliberately by opposite party No.2. On 2/12/10 complainant, his father alongwith one Des Raj went to the shop of opposite party No.2 and asked him to get either the fault repaired or he should replace the refrigerator but Sunil Syal flatly refused to help them and also used un parliamentary language and he openly proclaimed that complainant was free to go and can complain against him. . On 3/12/10 complainant got served a legal notice upon the opposite party No.2 which was duly served upon opposite party No.2 but he did not even bother to reply the said notice. That complainant and his family suffered great mental torture and agony at the hands of opposite parties. Complainant belongs to a middle class family and amount of refrigerator and expenditure incurred on earthing meant a lot to him. Complainant left with no option than to approach this Forum. A prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of fridge (Rs.7400/-) alongwith interest of 12%, to pay Rs.50000/- as damages for mental tension, agony and Rs.10000/- as cost of litigation has also been made.

2. In reply opposite parties No.1 and 2 pleaded that complainant has no cause of action . He has concealed material material facts and complaint is liable to be dismissed. The allegations made in para-2 of the complaint have been denied in to-to The allegations made in para-3 of the complaint have also been denied. That complainant was aware of the fact that fridge purchased by him was of 173 liters capacity and complainant himself took away said bill from opposite party No.2 . The allegations made in para-4 of the complaint have also been denied in to-to. It is also denied that complainant paid Rs.3000/- for getting earthing done at his house. That in fact there was earthing problem at the house of the complainant . Complainant was told to rectify the same and complainant did rectify it. Opposite party changed old compressor vide job sheet No.2185 dated 4/11/10. The said compressor was changed only for the satisfaction of the complainant and not due to any defect. After getting earthing executed, complainant did not make any complaint regarding receiving any electric shock. This can be corroborated from the fact that legal notice dated 3/12/10 did not mention about any electric shock. There was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and the fridge was working properly since its purchase. It is denied that on 2/12/10 complainant and his father alongwith one Des Raj went to the shop of opposite party No.2 and asked him to either get the fault repaired or he should replace the fridge as promised by him. The receipt of notice is admitted. It is further denied that complainant and his fmily suffered great mental torture and agony at the hands of opposite parties. Other paras of the complaint have been denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In order to prove his case Ex.CA to CD are affidavits of Gulshan Kumar, Tarsem Lal Saroj Kumar and Desh Raj, Ex.C1 bill dated 26/10/10, Ex.C2 legal notice dated 3/12/10 and Ex.C3 postal receipt and C4 acknowledgment due.

4. In order to rebut this evidence Ex.O1 affidavit of Atul Nagpal Area Service Manager of Electrolux.

5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant as well as opposite parties in person.

6. There is no dispute that Gulshan Kumar complainant purchased one refrigerator of Electrolux make of 173 liter for Rs.7400/- from opposite party No.2. Complainant alleged that current passes through this fridge. The compressor is defective. That earthing was redone at his house but the problem of giving shock by the fridge did not come to end and there is manufacturing defect in the fridge as has been pointed out by the mechanic.

7. On the other hand opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complainant . Rather it is case of the opposite parties that just for the satisfaction of the complainant, compressor was changed It is clear cut case of the opposite parties that there wa earthing problem in the house of the complainant . Complainant sent legal notice on 3/12/10 which is admitted by the opposite parties. In the said legal notice, it is pleaded that from the very first day of installation of fridge in the house, it did not function properly and complainant gave information regarding defect in the fridge but was put on lame excuses. The other allegation is that opposite party No.2 is not authorized agent of Electrolux fridge. It is further pleaded in the notice that opposite party has cheated and played fraud against the complainant. and opposite party refused to replace the fridge without any reason. . A close scrutiny of evidence led by the complainant reveals that complainant has alleged that current passes through the refrigerator , compressor is defective, that there is no earthing problem as stated by the mechanic of the opposite party and complainant had to redone earthing in his house and there is manufacturing defect in the fridge. Except current assing, other allegations are based on the asking of mechanics.. Complainant sent legal notice on 3/12/10 wherein he only pointed out that refrigerator is not working properly . As per defence of opposite parties, the compressor was changed only for the satisfaction of the complainant. It is strange that so many defects have been pointed out by the complainant in his complaint but none of them was pointed out in the legal notice dated 3/12/10. It reveals that several defects pointed out by the complainant in his complaint are afterthought. However, opposite parties in ara-4 of the written statement pleaded that old compressor of the refrigerator was changed vide job sheet No.2185 dated 4/11/10. Opposite parties have not placed on file copy of job sheet . The job sheet could throw some light whether the complainant was satisfied from the job work done by the mechanic of the opposite parties. However, from the allegations and counter allegations of the parties, it seems that complainant has lost confidence in the dealings of the opposite parties and fridge is not working properly to the satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore, complaint is accepted and we direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.7400/- to the complainant. Opposite parties will also pay Rs.1000/- on account of mental tension and agony suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties alongwith Rs.600/- as cost of litigation . Complainant is directed to return the fridge and will himself deliver the fridge at the shop of opposite party No.2 within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties will pay the amount as ordered above within 15 days from the receipt of the fridge.

Copies of order be communicated to the parties without delay by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced : (Shashi Narang) (Surinder Mohan)

01.06.2011 Member President.