| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 343 of 5.9.2016 Decided on: 12.4.2018 Taranjit Singh Dhindsa son of S.Surjit Singh, resident of village Daun Kalan, Tehsil & District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Green Dust Head Office, Reverse Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.337, Ist Floor, Chaudhary Satbir Complex, Near CRC-2,Sultanpur, MG Road, New Delhi-110030 through its Managing Director.
- PNK Services (Service Centre of Green Dust)C/o Godrej Service Centre, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala through Varinder Yadav-Service-Manager.
- Hi-Tech Electronics, Dhuri Gate, Phirni Road, Sangrur-148001 through its Proprietor/Partner.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.A.S.Dhindsa,Advocate, counsel for complainant. None for Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties No.2&3 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one Whirlpool Refrigerator (9000913013008) from Op No.3 vide Invoice No.1634 dated 25.11.2015 for a sum of rs.29000/-.It is averred that in the month of January 2016, the said refrigerator started giving problem and the complainant lodged complaints on 29.1.2016, 15.2.2016, 8.4.2016,9.5.2016 and 18.5.2016 on the complaint centre No.01166489200 & toll Free No.18001023878 under RLC No.9000913013008 with OP no.1 but initially the mechanics of Op no.2 visited the premises of the complainant at Patiala to repair the refrigerator but the defects in the refrigerator could not be removed and since 18.5.2016 no mechanic of the OPs had visited till the date of the filing of the present complaint. The said refrigerator is lying unused. In fact, the refrigerator is having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified.The complainant requested the OPs to either replace the refrigerator or refund the amount of Rs.29,000/- but to no use.Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986. On notice, OP no.1 appeared through its authorized representative /Assistant Manager and filed its reply to the complainat. Whereas OPs No.2&3 did not appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte. In its reply, OP no.1 has submitted that the refrigerator in questiondeveloped with a technical snag on 29.1.2016 vide complaint No.GD-PAT-057952 and the issue involved was related to sound and cooling problem, which was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and closed on 2.2.2016. Again the subsequent complaints were lodged on 15.2.2016, 8.4.2016 and 9.5.2016. All these complaints were duly attended to and the problems were rectified on 16.2.2016, 13.4.2016 and 12.5.2016.The said product further developed problem on 18.5.2016 but the complainant refused to take service and therefore the call was cancelled on 28.5.2016.As and when the complainant lodged a complaint it was properly attended to and the problem was rectified but after 18.5.2016, the complainant refused to take the service of the OPs. Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence of the complainant. The Asstt. Manager of OP no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his duly sworn affidavit and closed the evidence of the OP no.1. - We have heard the ld counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one refrigerator on 25.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.29000/-.Ex.C2 is the detail of the complaints lodged by the complainant on 29.1.2016, 15.2.2016, 8.4.2016, 9.5.2016 and 18.5.2016. The case of the complainant is that after 18.5.2016 no mechanic of the OPs turned up to rectify the problem whereas the only plea of the OP no.1 in its written version is that during first 4 complaints the mechanic of OP no.2 rectified the problem whereas on the fifth complaint i.e. lodged on 18.5.2016, the complainant refused to take the service of the OP. To prove this fact, OP No.2 has not placed on record the affidavit of the engineer/technician concerned, who went to attend the complaint lodged on 18.5.2016.
- In the present case, the refrigerator was purchased on 25.11.2016 and it was under warranty for one year. The problem in the said refrigerator occurred during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same. Despite rectifying the problem again and again, the defect could not be rectified and the complainant underwent a lot of harassment as after spending a huge amount on purchasing the refrigerator the same has been lying unused due to non rectification of the problem.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant against OPs No.1&2 only as OP no.3 is merely a seller. OPs No.1&2 are hereby directed to replace the refrigerator with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.29000/-, the same being the price of the refrigerator. OPs No.1&2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:12.4.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
