Punjab

Mansa

CC/14/211

Nachhater Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jagtar Singh

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TEHSIL COMPLEX,
M A N S A.
CC No.211 of 2014
Date of Institution: 07.11.2014
Date of Disposal : 13.02.2015
Nachhater Singh S/o Sh.Ajmer Singh, Resident of Chotian, Tehsil
Sardulgarh, District Mansa.
..... Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Garg Electronics, Main Road, Sardulgarh, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District
Mansa.
2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Plot No.1, Power Distribution
Solutions, Electrical and Electronics Division, Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Company Ltd, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai, 400 079
India.
.... Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
............
Present:-
For complainant : Sh.Jagtar Singh, Advocate.
For OP No.1 : Sh.M.L.Jindal, Advocate.
For OP No.2 : Sh.Raj Kumar, Authorized
Representative.
Quorum:-
Sh.Surinder Mohan, President.
Sh.Shivpal Bansal, Member.
Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.
ORDER:-
Surinder Mohan, President
Brief facts are that complainant purchased a Refrigerator of
Godrej Company on 28.5.12 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- from OP No.1 vide
Bill No.8765. OP No.1 gave one year warranty for the said Refrigerator and
5 year warranty of the compressor. The said Refrigerator worked properly
for two months but after that it got a fault and stopped working properly.
The Refrigerator doesn't give proper cooling and the food items stored in it
often get damaged due to less cooling. The Refrigerator also creates noise
every time. Complainant brought these defects to the knowledge of OP. An
Engineer of OPs visited the house of complainant. He checked and repaired
the Refrigerator free of costs. The Refrigerator worked smoothly for few
days and after that it started giving the above said problems. On the request
of complainant, Engineer of OP No.1 visited the house of complainant and
set right the Refrigerator. After the repair the Refrigerator started working
properly. On 20.6.14 the Refrigerator started giving the same problem. On
complaint, Engineer of OP No.1 visited the house of complainant and after
checking told that gas is required to be filled in compressor. Complainant
paid Rs.1,250/- for the same and after filling the gas the Engineer gave a
receipt. Engineer also informed that there is manufacturing defect in the
compressor and advised for replacement of the Refrigerator. Inspite of
filling gas, fault in the Refrigerator remained as it is and Refrigerator is not
working properly till now. Complainant requested OP No.1 for replacement
of the Refrigerator, but OP No.1 refused to do so. Complainant went on
visiting the shop of OP No.1 at Sardulgarh but every time OP No.1 is
making lame excuses and lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other.
OPs are deficient in rendering service to complainant. Complainant is
entitled to get the above said Refrigerator replaced with a new one. Due to
the act and conduct of OPs complainant is suffering physical harassment
and mental agony and is entitled for compensation to the tune of
Rs.60,000/-, besides Rs.5000/- as counsel fee and Rs.500/- as expenses of
complaint. Complaint is supported by an affidavit of Nachhater Singh.
2. In reply, OP No.1 has taken several legal objections that
complaint is not maintainable as it was filed beyond limitation; the
complainant had purchased Refrigerator on 28.5.12 and present complaint
was filed on 5.11.14; that complainant is not entitled to get any relief; that
complainant had filed the present false complaint only to harass the replying
OP and that complainant had never come to replying OP for making any
complaint regarding Refrigerator as alleged, so question of deficiency in
service does not arise. It is admitted that complainant purchased a
Refrigerator from replying OP and replying OP had issued bill against the
purchase. Replying OP has given warranty as per guidelines of Company.
Complainant never made any complaint to replying OP regarding any defect
as alleged nor replying OP has sent any Engineer to repair the same. There
is no manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator as alleged. The present
complaint has been filed just to harass replying OP. There is no deficiency
in service on the part of replying OP. Other paras of the complaint have been
denied and replying OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In a separate written version OP No.2 has also taken certain
legal objections that complaint is not maintainable as it was filed beyond
limitation; the complainant had purchased Refrigerator on 28.5.12 and
present complaint was filed on 5.11.14; that complainant is not entitled to
get any relief; that complainant is trying to take undue advantage of the CPA
by filling false complaint and that the replying OP has attended to all the
complaints received from the complainant as per the terms and conditions of
warranty. It is further pleaded that first complaint was received by replying
OP on 18.6.14 vide service call No.9766989 i.e. after two years from the
date of purchase of the Refrigerator. The Refrigerator was set right on
20.6.14 by replacing the relay and compressor. Second complaint was
received by replying OP on 20.8.14 vide service call No.989212 saying that
Refrigerator is producing extra noise. To reduce the noise coming from the
freezer due to gas purging during ice formation, the Technician of replying
OP adjusted the freezer frame during his visit on 20.8.14. It was explained
that every electro-mechanical appliance will produce some noise while
working. Refrigerator is in perfectly working condition after replacing the
relay and compressor. OP No.1 will be in a better position to reply about the
attitude, however, whenever a complaint has been received from
complainant, directly or indirectly, the same has been attended to and the
Refrigerator is in perfect working condition. Complainant is not entitled to
any compensation, as prayed for. There is no deficiency in service on the
part of replying OP. Other paras of the complaint have been denied and OP
No.2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into
evidence Ex.C-1 affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-2 Bill dated 28.5.12 for
Rs.12,000/-, Ex.C-3 receipt dated 20.6.14 and Ex.C-4 User Guide((4 pages).
5. In order to rebut this evidence, OPs have placed on record
Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Shiv Nath, proprietor of OP No.1 and Ex.OP2/1
affidavit of Harinder Singh(Sr.Executive) for OP No.2., Authority letter
dated 20.12.14 of Harinder Singh and Authority Letter dated 27.12.14 of Raj
Kumar.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for parties as well as Authorized
Representative of OP No.2 and have carefully gone through the file.
7. There is no dispute that complainant purchased a Refrigerator
on 28.5.12 for Rs.12,000/-. As per case of complainant the said refrigerator
worked properly for two months and after that it got a fault and stopped
working properly. It does not give proper cooling and food items stored in
it often get damaged due to less cooling and it also creates noise every time.
This fact has been denied by OPs and it is a clear stand of OPs that
complainant never made any complaint. Although complainant has pleaded
that the refrigerator stopped functioning but there is absolutely no evidence
on the file in support of this contention.
8. The earliest complaint lodged on the toll free number is dated
20.6.14. It is admitted by both the parties that the compressor carries
warranty of five years and had one year warranty on all other parts except
bulb, glass and add-on plastic parts from the date of purchase. It is admitted
by OPs that its compressor and relay were replaced on 20.6.14. Compressor
was definitely within warranty period and in this manner relay and
compressor were replaced without charging any money from complainant.
9. As per OPs, to reduce noise coming from the freezer due to gas
purging during ice formation, the Technician of the OPs adjusted the freezer
frame of the refrigerator during his visit on 20.8.14 and it was explained to
complainant that every Electro-Mechanical appliance will produce some
noise while working.
10. Now when compressor and relay have already been replaced,
the question is whether there is any noise in the working of the refrigerator
or there is any less cooling. Less cooling is due to several factors.
Complainant has not pointed out which part of the refrigerator is defective
but decidedly warranty period of refrigerator has already expired on 27.5.13
except the compressor. This complaint has been filed in November, 2014.
In case at this stage there is any defect in the refrigerator, except the
compressor, it is duty of OPs to set it right, but at the cost of complainant.
Complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect .
11. Resultantly, complaint is partly accepted. OPs are directed to
repair the refrigerator within one month from the date of receipt of the copy
of this order at the cost of complainant. Parties are left to bear their own
costs
12. Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties
free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
13.02.2015
Neena Rani Gupta, Shiv Pal Bansal, Surinder Mohan,
Member. Member. Pre sident.
*neera*