Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/426

Kewal Preet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gemsons International - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. Singh

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 7.7.2014

Complaint Case. No. 426/14                                                 Date of order:   20.9.2017

 

Ms.Kawal Preet Kaur  W/o Manpreet Singh R/o 7-25, Ist Floor, E Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.

                                                                                                                                    Complainant

                                                                   VS.

 

Gemsons International  R/o Shop No.67, South Patel Nagar, Delhi-110008.

                            Opposite party-1                                 

M/s Samsung Indian Electronics, R/o 7^th, 8^th and 9^th  Floors  IFCI Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

                                                                                                                            Opposite party -2.                   

                                                              ORDER

R.S.BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Ms. Kawal Preet Kaur named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Gemsons International and another herein after in short referred as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. One lac towards cost of a refrigerator, Rs.50,000/- towards mental  harassment , Rs.20,000/- towards financial loss and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.                                                                              The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the complaint as stated are that the complainant vide invoice No. ­SC 362 dated 14.5.13 purchased one  refrigerator  from  the opposite party 1 for sum of Rs. One lac.  The refrigerator started giving trouble from the beginning. The complainant on 9.5.2014 made complaint No. 4173476731 to the opposite party 1.  Next day a mechanic visited the complainant and asked the complainant to switch off the refrigerator for four hours.  The complainant switched off the refrigerator. But when the complainant again switched on the refrigerator the same was giving generating problem.  The complainant again  made  complaint to the opposite party 1.  The opposite party 1 sent  mechanic. He filled  in gas. But the refrigerator did not work properly. The  refrigerator caught fire due to his negligence. The complainant again on 17.5.2014 lodged complaint No. 4173962752.  On 3.6.2014 mechanic of the opposite party no. 1 visited and told the complainant that compressor of the refrigerator requires replacement.  On 17.6.14 the compressor was replaced. But the problem did not solve. The complainant made repeated complaints to the opposite parties and told them that the refrigerator has manufacturing defect. But they did not pay any heed to request of the complaint. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. One lac cost of the refrigerator, Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment, Rs.20,000/- for financial loss and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.   Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties but despite service none of the opposite party appeared. Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.6.2016.

            When the  complainant was asked to lead evidence she tendered in evidence her affidavit narrating  facts of the complaint. She  also relied upon invoice No. EDC 585829724171645 dt. 14.5.2013 and  e.mail dated 20.6.2014.        From perusal of the documents relied upon by the complainant, it reveals that on 14.5.2013 she purchased refrigerator from opposite party 1 manufactured by opposite party2 for a sum of Rs. One lac. The refrigerator started giving trouble.  The complainant lodged several complaints to the opposite parties within warranty but the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect.

            We have heard Ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

  The version, documents and affidavit relied upon by the complainant have remained un-rebutted and unchallenged.  Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the un-rebutted and unchallenged version, documents and affidavit filed by the complainant.  The complainant from the unrebutted version, evidence and documents succeeded to prove that on 14.5.2013 she purchased a refrigerator from opposite party 1 manufactured by opposite party 2 for Rs. One lac.  The refrigerator worked satisfactorily upto 9.5.2014, date of first complaint.  The version of the complainant is that the refrigerator is having manufacturing defect. But this version of the complainant is not reliable and trust worthy because had the refrigerator been having manufacturing defect the same could not satisfactorily work for about one year from 14.5.2013 to 9.5.2014.  However, the refrigerator started giving trouble within one year from sale.  Therefore the matter was reported  to opposite parties within warranty.  The opposite parties  failed to remove the defect and solve the problem of the refrigerator despite repeated complaints .  Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            Hence, we direct the opposite parties to rectify defects and remove  problems of the refrigerator within thirty days from receipt of copy of this order on their expenses and pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and mental , physical and financial harassment as well as litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on :  20.9.2017

 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)                              MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT