Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/698

Major Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Guru Teg Bahadur Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Karam Singh adv

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 698 dated 16.11.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 30.11.2021. 

 

Major Singh aged 58 years son of S. Sarwan Singh, resident of Village Cheema, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Guru Teg Bahadur Electronic, Malerkotla Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2. L.G. Electronics India, Head Office: 51, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Vihar Extension, Ecotech-II, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, U.P., through its Director/M.D.

3.M/s. Kirpal Electronics, 153/2,       Prem Street No.4, Khanna, Harkrishan Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana-141401.                                                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Sections 12 & 14the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Karam Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate for OP2.

For OP3                         :         Complaint against OP3 withdrawn vide order                                             dated 26.04.2019.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that on 30.09.2018, the complainant purchase LG refrigerator of 360 liters make GI C-402 RPZU of 2017 from OP1 for Rs.37,999/-  vide invoice No.569 dated 30.09.2018. At the time of purchase, OP1 explained to the complainant that it was a convertible refrigerator and its freezer can be converted to the normal temperature. However, OP1 delivered the complainant a refrigerator which was not convertible. The complainant called OP1 and confronted it with the fact that the supplied refrigerator was not a convertible one, the latter assured him that it would start operating as convertible refrigerator after about 6 hours of working. However, the refrigerator never operated as convertible one. On the complaint of the complainant, the OP1 sent a person to the house of the complainant from customer care who also told the complainant that it was not a convertible refrigerator. In this manner, the OP1 sold the refrigerator on mis-representation and cheating as the refrigerator was not convertible, contrary to what was promised by OP1. This amounts to deficiency of service. The legal notice dated 13.10.2018 served upon the OPs also failed to evoke a positive response. In the end, it has been requested that the complaint be allowed and the OPs be directed to replace the inconvertible refrigerator  with a convertible one and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-2.             Upon notice, OP1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte. However, the complaint as against OP3 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.04.2019.

3.                OP2 appeared and filed written statement claiming that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against OP2 if the desired convertible refrigerator was not provided to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not made any specific allegations against OP2 nor has pointed out any manufacturing defect or that the product was of inferior quality and there is no complaint regarding the functioning of the refrigerator. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manish Garg, Deputy Manager of OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

7.                In his affidavit Ex. CA, the complainant Major Singh has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the complaint and has also produced on record retail invoice Ex. C1. It has been candidly stated by the complainant that OP1 sold the refrigerator to him vide Ex. C1 claiming that it was a convertible refrigerator, but later on it was found to be non-convertible refrigerator. It has also been alleged that in the case of convertible refrigerator, the freezer of the refrigerator can be converted to normal temperature. Since OP1 has not contested the complaint and was proceeded against exparte, the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the affidavit of the complainant remain unrebutted so far as OP1 is concerned. It, therefore, stands established that OP1 sold LG refrigerator to the complainant with promise that it was a convertible one whereas the refrigerator supplied was a non-convertible one. This amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, OP1 is held liable to replace the refrigerator with new one having a feature of convertibility.

8.                So far as OP2 is concerned, it is only the manufacturer or the refrigerator. No manufacturing defect has been pointed out in the refrigerator nor any other allegation has been made against OP2. Therefore, the complaint as against OP2 cannot succeed. The deficiency of service, if any, is on the part of OP1 only. Therefore, the complaint as against OP2 deserves to be dismissed.  

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte as against OP1 with an order that OP1 shall replace the refrigerator supplied to the complainant vide invoice Ex. C1 within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. OP1 shall further pay composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The complaint as against OP2 shall stand dismissed. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.11.2021.

Gobind Ram.