Haier Appliance V/S Ashok Bansal - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Moga

CC/07/114

Ashok Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haier Appliance - Opp.Party(s)

Anish Kant Sharma

15 May 2008

ORDER

distt.consumer moga
district consumer forum,moga
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/114

Ashok Bansal						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Haier Appliance A.G.Electronics Haier Appliance						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Jagmohan Singh Chawla 2. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Anish Kant Sharma

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 114 of 2007. Instituted On: 06.09.2007. Date of Service: 22.10.2007. Decided On: 15.05.2008. Ashok Bansal son of Sh.Sohan Lal, resident of village Dunne Ke, Tehsil & Distt. Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Haier Appliances (I) Private limited, 152-Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, B-1/A-14, Mohan Corporation Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044 through its Director. 3. A.G.Electronics, Opposite Nehru Park, Partap Road, Moga through its Proprietor. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Anish Kant, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni, Advocate counsel for the OPs no.1 & 2 OP-3 Exparte. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Ashok Bansal complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, Chandigarh and another (herein-after referred to as Haier Appliances)-opposite parties directing them to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund the price of refrigerator and also to pay Rs.50000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Ashok Bansal complainant had purchased a refrigerator make Haier bearing capacity of 689 Lt. equipped with Fuzzy, Logic with Mini Bar and Dispenser having Code no.BA5450015 for Rs.83000/- on 24.06.2005 from OP3-A.G.Electronics with one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. That since the date of purchase, said refrigerator was not working properly as there was a major problem in its cooling and temperature setting, so it was unable to freeze ice and to maintain its cooling standards as promised by the company at the time of purchase. That due to aforesaid defects, the complainant is facing problems in storing vegetables and food and other eatables and is also deprived of drinking cold water in such a hot summer days inspite of spending huge amount on the above said refrigerator. That the complainant has brought this defect into the notice of OPs by way of complaints on so many occasions. Apart from it, the complainant also approached OP3-A.G.Electronics and made a request to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question but to no effect. After repeated requests to OPs-Haier Appliances, an engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances came the house of complainant and told that the unit can not be repaired as its compressor was not working properly and it can not be rectified. He also recommended that the refrigerator may be replaced with a new one. Thereafter, other persons of the company visited the house of the complainant to inspect the refrigerator in question, but they failed to remove the defect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Haier Appliances had caused the great mental tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances served and appeared through Sh.Kuldeep Sahni Advocate and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complainant has withheld the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The complaint is beyond the period of warranty period as the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant on 24.06.2005 i.e. from the date of purchase the refrigerator in question. To maintain their reputation, the OPs-Haier Appliances had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) on 17.08.2006 free of cost, even after the warranty period and refrigerator started giving freezer Temp at -18o C and other compartment Temp at +08o C as prescribed. Again on 16.09.2006 the fan motor of the refrigerator in question was replaced free of cost. On 12.03.2007 there was a problem of ice cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure. Customer was guided and he refused to pay the charges. Again on 03.05.2007 fan motor was adjusted and stabilizer was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further on 09.06.2007 due to cooling problem, the PCB was replaced on 14.06.2007. Again on 13.07.2007, complainant made a complaint of no cooling and as a sum of Rs.10000/- to 15000/- approximately was required for its repair, but the complainant refused to make the payment and rather filed the present complaint. On merits, OPs-Haier Appliances took the same plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. OP3-A.G.Electronics appeared through Sh.Anish Aggarwal its proprietor and filed written reply. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was not required to provide any service to the complainant as the same is provided by the company. So OP3-A.G.Electronics is not responsible for anything, but due to good gesture, they conveyed about the problem of the complainant to OPs-Haier Appliances who deputed their engineer/ technician from Ludhiana to get the refrigerator in question repaired. Whenever the complainant made a complaint regarding the compressor and cooling of the refrigerator, the same was sent to the authorized service centre of the company. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP3-A.G.Electronics. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous may please be dismissed. 5. Lateron, OP3-A.G.Electronics did not appear and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.10.2007. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of legal notice Ex.A2, postal receipts Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, acknowledgements Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, bill Ex.A7, copies of job sheet Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Haier Appliance tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Inderjit Singh, copies of job sheets Ex.R2 to Ex.R9, copy of resolution Ex.R10 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for OPs-Haier Appliances and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances have failed to repair the refrigerator in question of the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has some force. Admittedly, the refrigerator in question had one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. Admittedly for the first time, the complaint regarding refrigerator in question has been made by the complainant on 17.08.2006 vide Ex.R2 which shows that the complainant made first complaint after the expiry of one year i.e. warranty period. Inspite of this fact, the OPs-Haier Appliances sent their engineers/ technicians to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question as shown from the documents Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 job sheets. Job Sheet Ex.A8 shows that the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to coding prob + ice cubes prob due to defect in PCB (Printed Circuit Board). The engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that the PCB to be replaced. In Ex.A9 (Ex.R9 same document) the complainant reported no cooling and no ice cubes. However, the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that ice maker defective due to low water pressure + compressor was low pumping due to high condensation, so less cooling in freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the complainant was advised accordingly. Similarly, in job sheet Ex.A10 the complainant complained that there was no cooling, but the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances reported that the refrigerator found OK. He further gave the temperature of refrigerator +7o C and temperature of freezer -14o C. Prior to the complaint Ex.R9 dated 13.07.2007, the engineer of OPs-Haier Appliance had attended the refrigerator of the complainant on 17.08.2006, 16.09.2006, 12.03.2007, 01.05.2007, 27.05.2007, 09.06.2007, 23.06.2007 and 13.07.2007. In complaint Ex.R2 dated 17.08.2006 the engineer of the company had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board). Similarly in complaint Ex.R3 dated 16.09.2006 the fan motor was replaced. In complaint Ex.R4 dated 12.03.2007 the refrigerator was OK, but water pressure was low and consumer was guided accordingly. Similarly, in complaint Ex.R5 dated 01.05.2007 the water pressure was low and customer was advised accordingly. In complaint Ex.R6 dated 27.05.2007 the stabilizer was found faulty and the same was replaced. In complaint Ex.R7 dated 09.07.2007 the PCB was replaced. In complaint Ex.R8 dated 25.06.2007 the refrigerator in question was found OK. It shows that all these complaints were attended to by the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances and in all these complaints either the complainant refused to sign or signed being unsatisfied. In Ex.R9 the complaint was with regard to ice making and less cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure and compressor having low pumping, so less cooling in the freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the customer was advised accordingly. During the course of trial of this complaint, this Forum again sent the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances to redress the grievance of the complainant, who visited his house on 16.03.2008 and found the ice maker faulty. He replaced the same and thereby noticed the freezer temperature as -5o C and refrigerator temperature as +8o C. Thus, the aforesaid evidence produced by the OPs-Haier Appliances shows that they were attending the complaints of the complainant time and again although the warranty period had already been expired. 10. The last complaint Ex.R9 (Ex.A9 same document) shows that the compressor was low pumping due to high condensation. Ld.counsel for the OPs-Haier Appliance has tried to explain the reasons of high condensation, but we do not agree with the same and direct the OPs-Haier Appliances to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question. If the defect in the refrigerator in question is rectified on the change of the compressor then the entire problem of the complainant would be redressed, but the OPs-Haier Appliances can not be burdened to replace the refrigerator in question with new one or refund its price after using the same for about 3 years by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant did not make any complaint within one year from the date of its purchase and started making complaints after 17.08.2006 i.e. after the expiry of warranty period. In these circumstances, the complainant can not be allowed to agitate for the replacement of the refrigerator in question or to refund its price. 11. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has some merit and the same is partly accepted. OPs-Haier Appliances is directed to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:15.05.2008. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 114 of 2007. Instituted On: 06.09.2007. Date of Service: 22.10.2007. Decided On: 15.05.2008. Ashok Bansal son of Sh.Sohan Lal, resident of village Dunne Ke, Tehsil & Distt. Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Haier Appliances (I) Private limited, 152-Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, B-1/A-14, Mohan Corporation Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044 through its Director. 3. A.G.Electronics, Opposite Nehru Park, Partap Road, Moga through its Proprietor. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Anish Kant, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni, Advocate counsel for the OPs no.1 & 2 OP-3 Exparte. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Ashok Bansal complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, Chandigarh and another (herein-after referred to as Haier Appliances)-opposite parties directing them to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund the price of refrigerator and also to pay Rs.50000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Ashok Bansal complainant had purchased a refrigerator make Haier bearing capacity of 689 Lt. equipped with Fuzzy, Logic with Mini Bar and Dispenser having Code no.BA5450015 for Rs.83000/- on 24.06.2005 from OP3-A.G.Electronics with one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. That since the date of purchase, said refrigerator was not working properly as there was a major problem in its cooling and temperature setting, so it was unable to freeze ice and to maintain its cooling standards as promised by the company at the time of purchase. That due to aforesaid defects, the complainant is facing problems in storing vegetables and food and other eatables and is also deprived of drinking cold water in such a hot summer days inspite of spending huge amount on the above said refrigerator. That the complainant has brought this defect into the notice of OPs by way of complaints on so many occasions. Apart from it, the complainant also approached OP3-A.G.Electronics and made a request to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question but to no effect. After repeated requests to OPs-Haier Appliances, an engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances came the house of complainant and told that the unit can not be repaired as its compressor was not working properly and it can not be rectified. He also recommended that the refrigerator may be replaced with a new one. Thereafter, other persons of the company visited the house of the complainant to inspect the refrigerator in question, but they failed to remove the defect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Haier Appliances had caused the great mental tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances served and appeared through Sh.Kuldeep Sahni Advocate and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complainant has withheld the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The complaint is beyond the period of warranty period as the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant on 24.06.2005 i.e. from the date of purchase the refrigerator in question. To maintain their reputation, the OPs-Haier Appliances had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) on 17.08.2006 free of cost, even after the warranty period and refrigerator started giving freezer Temp at -18o C and other compartment Temp at +08o C as prescribed. Again on 16.09.2006 the fan motor of the refrigerator in question was replaced free of cost. On 12.03.2007 there was a problem of ice cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure. Customer was guided and he refused to pay the charges. Again on 03.05.2007 fan motor was adjusted and stabilizer was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further on 09.06.2007 due to cooling problem, the PCB was replaced on 14.06.2007. Again on 13.07.2007, complainant made a complaint of no cooling and as a sum of Rs.10000/- to 15000/- approximately was required for its repair, but the complainant refused to make the payment and rather filed the present complaint. On merits, OPs-Haier Appliances took the same plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. OP3-A.G.Electronics appeared through Sh.Anish Aggarwal its proprietor and filed written reply. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was not required to provide any service to the complainant as the same is provided by the company. So OP3-A.G.Electronics is not responsible for anything, but due to good gesture, they conveyed about the problem of the complainant to OPs-Haier Appliances who deputed their engineer/ technician from Ludhiana to get the refrigerator in question repaired. Whenever the complainant made a complaint regarding the compressor and cooling of the refrigerator, the same was sent to the authorized service centre of the company. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP3-A.G.Electronics. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous may please be dismissed. 5. Lateron, OP3-A.G.Electronics did not appear and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.10.2007. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of legal notice Ex.A2, postal receipts Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, acknowledgements Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, bill Ex.A7, copies of job sheet Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Haier Appliance tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Inderjit Singh, copies of job sheets Ex.R2 to Ex.R9, copy of resolution Ex.R10 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for OPs-Haier Appliances and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances have failed to repair the refrigerator in question of the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has some force. Admittedly, the refrigerator in question had one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. Admittedly for the first time, the complaint regarding refrigerator in question has been made by the complainant on 17.08.2006 vide Ex.R2 which shows that the complainant made first complaint after the expiry of one year i.e. warranty period. Inspite of this fact, the OPs-Haier Appliances sent their engineers/ technicians to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question as shown from the documents Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 job sheets. Job Sheet Ex.A8 shows that the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to coding prob + ice cubes prob due to defect in PCB (Printed Circuit Board). The engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that the PCB to be replaced. In Ex.A9 (Ex.R9 same document) the complainant reported no cooling and no ice cubes. However, the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that ice maker defective due to low water pressure + compressor was low pumping due to high condensation, so less cooling in freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the complainant was advised accordingly. Similarly, in job sheet Ex.A10 the complainant complained that there was no cooling, but the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances reported that the refrigerator found OK. He further gave the temperature of refrigerator +7o C and temperature of freezer -14o C. Prior to the complaint Ex.R9 dated 13.07.2007, the engineer of OPs-Haier Appliance had attended the refrigerator of the complainant on 17.08.2006, 16.09.2006, 12.03.2007, 01.05.2007, 27.05.2007, 09.06.2007, 23.06.2007 and 13.07.2007. In complaint Ex.R2 dated 17.08.2006 the engineer of the company had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board). Similarly in complaint Ex.R3 dated 16.09.2006 the fan motor was replaced. In complaint Ex.R4 dated 12.03.2007 the refrigerator was OK, but water pressure was low and consumer was guided accordingly. Similarly, in complaint Ex.R5 dated 01.05.2007 the water pressure was low and customer was advised accordingly. In complaint Ex.R6 dated 27.05.2007 the stabilizer was found faulty and the same was replaced. In complaint Ex.R7 dated 09.07.2007 the PCB was replaced. In complaint Ex.R8 dated 25.06.2007 the refrigerator in question was found OK. It shows that all these complaints were attended to by the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances and in all these complaints either the complainant refused to sign or signed being unsatisfied. In Ex.R9 the complaint was with regard to ice making and less cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure and compressor having low pumping, so less cooling in the freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the customer was advised accordingly. During the course of trial of this complaint, this Forum again sent the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances to redress the grievance of the complainant, who visited his house on 16.03.2008 and found the ice maker faulty. He replaced the same and thereby noticed the freezer temperature as -5o C and refrigerator temperature as +8o C. Thus, the aforesaid evidence produced by the OPs-Haier Appliances shows that they were attending the complaints of the complainant time and again although the warranty period had already been expired. 10. The last complaint Ex.R9 (Ex.A9 same document) shows that the compressor was low pumping due to high condensation. Ld.counsel for the OPs-Haier Appliance has tried to explain the reasons of high condensation, but we do not agree with the same and direct the OPs-Haier Appliances to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question. If the defect in the refrigerator in question is rectified on the change of the compressor then the entire problem of the complainant would be redressed, but the OPs-Haier Appliances can not be burdened to replace the refrigerator in question with new one or refund its price after using the same for about 3 years by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant did not make any complaint within one year from the date of its purchase and started making complaints after 17.08.2006 i.e. after the expiry of warranty period. In these circumstances, the complainant can not be allowed to agitate for the replacement of the refrigerator in question or to refund its price. 11. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has some merit and the same is partly accepted. OPs-Haier Appliances is directed to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:15.05.2008.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 114 of 2007. Instituted On: 06.09.2007. Date of Service: 22.10.2007. Decided On: 15.05.2008. Ashok Bansal son of Sh.Sohan Lal, resident of village Dunne Ke, Tehsil & Distt. Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Haier Appliances (I) Private limited, 152-Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, B-1/A-14, Mohan Corporation Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044 through its Director. 3. A.G.Electronics, Opposite Nehru Park, Partap Road, Moga through its Proprietor. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Anish Kant, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni, Advocate counsel for the OPs no.1 & 2 OP-3 Exparte. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Ashok Bansal complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, Chandigarh and another (herein-after referred to as Haier Appliances)-opposite parties directing them to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund the price of refrigerator and also to pay Rs.50000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Ashok Bansal complainant had purchased a refrigerator make Haier bearing capacity of 689 Lt. equipped with Fuzzy, Logic with Mini Bar and Dispenser having Code no.BA5450015 for Rs.83000/- on 24.06.2005 from OP3-A.G.Electronics with one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. That since the date of purchase, said refrigerator was not working properly as there was a major problem in its cooling and temperature setting, so it was unable to freeze ice and to maintain its cooling standards as promised by the company at the time of purchase. That due to aforesaid defects, the complainant is facing problems in storing vegetables and food and other eatables and is also deprived of drinking cold water in such a hot summer days inspite of spending huge amount on the above said refrigerator. That the complainant has brought this defect into the notice of OPs by way of complaints on so many occasions. Apart from it, the complainant also approached OP3-A.G.Electronics and made a request to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question but to no effect. After repeated requests to OPs-Haier Appliances, an engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances came the house of complainant and told that the unit can not be repaired as its compressor was not working properly and it can not be rectified. He also recommended that the refrigerator may be replaced with a new one. Thereafter, other persons of the company visited the house of the complainant to inspect the refrigerator in question, but they failed to remove the defect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Haier Appliances had caused the great mental tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances served and appeared through Sh.Kuldeep Sahni Advocate and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complainant has withheld the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The complaint is beyond the period of warranty period as the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant on 24.06.2005 i.e. from the date of purchase the refrigerator in question. To maintain their reputation, the OPs-Haier Appliances had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) on 17.08.2006 free of cost, even after the warranty period and refrigerator started giving freezer Temp at -18o C and other compartment Temp at +08o C as prescribed. Again on 16.09.2006 the fan motor of the refrigerator in question was replaced free of cost. On 12.03.2007 there was a problem of ice cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure. Customer was guided and he refused to pay the charges. Again on 03.05.2007 fan motor was adjusted and stabilizer was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further on 09.06.2007 due to cooling problem, the PCB was replaced on 14.06.2007. Again on 13.07.2007, complainant made a complaint of no cooling and as a sum of Rs.10000/- to 15000/- approximately was required for its repair, but the complainant refused to make the payment and rather filed the present complaint. On merits, OPs-Haier Appliances took the same plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. OP3-A.G.Electronics appeared through Sh.Anish Aggarwal its proprietor and filed written reply. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was not required to provide any service to the complainant as the same is provided by the company. So OP3-A.G.Electronics is not responsible for anything, but due to good gesture, they conveyed about the problem of the complainant to OPs-Haier Appliances who deputed their engineer/ technician from Ludhiana to get the refrigerator in question repaired. Whenever the complainant made a complaint regarding the compressor and cooling of the refrigerator, the same was sent to the authorized service centre of the company. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP3-A.G.Electronics. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous may please be dismissed. 5. Lateron, OP3-A.G.Electronics did not appear and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.10.2007. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of legal notice Ex.A2, postal receipts Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, acknowledgements Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, bill Ex.A7, copies of job sheet Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Haier Appliance tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Inderjit Singh, copies of job sheets Ex.R2 to Ex.R9, copy of resolution Ex.R10 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for OPs-Haier Appliances and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances have failed to repair the refrigerator in question of the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has some force. Admittedly, the refrigerator in question had one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. Admittedly for the first time, the complaint regarding refrigerator in question has been made by the complainant on 17.08.2006 vide Ex.R2 which shows that the complainant made first complaint after the expiry of one year i.e. warranty period. Inspite of this fact, the OPs-Haier Appliances sent their engineers/ technicians to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question as shown from the documents Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 job sheets. Job Sheet Ex.A8 shows that the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to coding prob + ice cubes prob due to defect in PCB (Printed Circuit Board). The engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that the PCB to be replaced. In Ex.A9 (Ex.R9 same document) the complainant reported no cooling and no ice cubes. However, the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that ice maker defective due to low water pressure + compressor was low pumping due to high condensation, so less cooling in freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the complainant was advised accordingly. Similarly, in job sheet Ex.A10 the complainant complained that there was no cooling, but the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances reported that the refrigerator found OK. He further gave the temperature of refrigerator +7o C and temperature of freezer -14o C. Prior to the complaint Ex.R9 dated 13.07.2007, the engineer of OPs-Haier Appliance had attended the refrigerator of the complainant on 17.08.2006, 16.09.2006, 12.03.2007, 01.05.2007, 27.05.2007, 09.06.2007, 23.06.2007 and 13.07.2007. In complaint Ex.R2 dated 17.08.2006 the engineer of the company had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board). Similarly in complaint Ex.R3 dated 16.09.2006 the fan motor was replaced. In complaint Ex.R4 dated 12.03.2007 the refrigerator was OK, but water pressure was low and consumer was guided accordingly. Similarly, in complaint Ex.R5 dated 01.05.2007 the water pressure was low and customer was advised accordingly. In complaint Ex.R6 dated 27.05.2007 the stabilizer was found faulty and the same was replaced. In complaint Ex.R7 dated 09.07.2007 the PCB was replaced. In complaint Ex.R8 dated 25.06.2007 the refrigerator in question was found OK. It shows that all these complaints were attended to by the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances and in all these complaints either the complainant refused to sign or signed being unsatisfied. In Ex.R9 the complaint was with regard to ice making and less cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure and compressor having low pumping, so less cooling in the freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the customer was advised accordingly. During the course of trial of this complaint, this Forum again sent the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances to redress the grievance of the complainant, who visited his house on 16.03.2008 and found the ice maker faulty. He replaced the same and thereby noticed the freezer temperature as -5o C and refrigerator temperature as +8o C. Thus, the aforesaid evidence produced by the OPs-Haier Appliances shows that they were attending the complaints of the complainant time and again although the warranty period had already been expired. 10. The last complaint Ex.R9 (Ex.A9 same document) shows that the compressor was low pumping due to high condensation. Ld.counsel for the OPs-Haier Appliance has tried to explain the reasons of high condensation, but we do not agree with the same and direct the OPs-Haier Appliances to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question. If the defect in the refrigerator in question is rectified on the change of the compressor then the entire problem of the complainant would be redressed, but the OPs-Haier Appliances can not be burdened to replace the refrigerator in question with new one or refund its price after using the same for about 3 years by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant did not make any complaint within one year from the date of its purchase and started making complaints after 17.08.2006 i.e. after the expiry of warranty period. In these circumstances, the complainant can not be allowed to agitate for the replacement of the refrigerator in question or to refund its price. 11. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has some merit and the same is partly accepted. OPs-Haier Appliances is directed to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:15.05.2008. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 114 of 2007. Instituted On: 06.09.2007. Date of Service: 22.10.2007. Decided On: 15.05.2008. Ashok Bansal son of Sh.Sohan Lal, resident of village Dunne Ke, Tehsil & Distt. Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Haier Appliances (I) Private limited, 152-Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, B-1/A-14, Mohan Corporation Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044 through its Director. 3. A.G.Electronics, Opposite Nehru Park, Partap Road, Moga through its Proprietor. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Anish Kant, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni, Advocate counsel for the OPs no.1 & 2 OP-3 Exparte. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Ashok Bansal complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Haier Appliances (I) Private Limited, Chandigarh and another (herein-after referred to as Haier Appliances)-opposite parties directing them to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund the price of refrigerator and also to pay Rs.50000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Ashok Bansal complainant had purchased a refrigerator make Haier bearing capacity of 689 Lt. equipped with Fuzzy, Logic with Mini Bar and Dispenser having Code no.BA5450015 for Rs.83000/- on 24.06.2005 from OP3-A.G.Electronics with one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. That since the date of purchase, said refrigerator was not working properly as there was a major problem in its cooling and temperature setting, so it was unable to freeze ice and to maintain its cooling standards as promised by the company at the time of purchase. That due to aforesaid defects, the complainant is facing problems in storing vegetables and food and other eatables and is also deprived of drinking cold water in such a hot summer days inspite of spending huge amount on the above said refrigerator. That the complainant has brought this defect into the notice of OPs by way of complaints on so many occasions. Apart from it, the complainant also approached OP3-A.G.Electronics and made a request to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question but to no effect. After repeated requests to OPs-Haier Appliances, an engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances came the house of complainant and told that the unit can not be repaired as its compressor was not working properly and it can not be rectified. He also recommended that the refrigerator may be replaced with a new one. Thereafter, other persons of the company visited the house of the complainant to inspect the refrigerator in question, but they failed to remove the defect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Haier Appliances had caused the great mental tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances served and appeared through Sh.Kuldeep Sahni Advocate and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complainant has withheld the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The complaint is beyond the period of warranty period as the cause of action, if any, arose to the complainant on 24.06.2005 i.e. from the date of purchase the refrigerator in question. To maintain their reputation, the OPs-Haier Appliances had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) on 17.08.2006 free of cost, even after the warranty period and refrigerator started giving freezer Temp at -18o C and other compartment Temp at +08o C as prescribed. Again on 16.09.2006 the fan motor of the refrigerator in question was replaced free of cost. On 12.03.2007 there was a problem of ice cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure. Customer was guided and he refused to pay the charges. Again on 03.05.2007 fan motor was adjusted and stabilizer was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further on 09.06.2007 due to cooling problem, the PCB was replaced on 14.06.2007. Again on 13.07.2007, complainant made a complaint of no cooling and as a sum of Rs.10000/- to 15000/- approximately was required for its repair, but the complainant refused to make the payment and rather filed the present complaint. On merits, OPs-Haier Appliances took the same plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. OP3-A.G.Electronics appeared through Sh.Anish Aggarwal its proprietor and filed written reply. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was not required to provide any service to the complainant as the same is provided by the company. So OP3-A.G.Electronics is not responsible for anything, but due to good gesture, they conveyed about the problem of the complainant to OPs-Haier Appliances who deputed their engineer/ technician from Ludhiana to get the refrigerator in question repaired. Whenever the complainant made a complaint regarding the compressor and cooling of the refrigerator, the same was sent to the authorized service centre of the company. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP3-A.G.Electronics. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous may please be dismissed. 5. Lateron, OP3-A.G.Electronics did not appear and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.10.2007. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of legal notice Ex.A2, postal receipts Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, acknowledgements Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, bill Ex.A7, copies of job sheet Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Haier Appliance tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Inderjit Singh, copies of job sheets Ex.R2 to Ex.R9, copy of resolution Ex.R10 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for OPs-Haier Appliances and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Anish Kant ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs no.1 and 2-Haier Appliances have failed to repair the refrigerator in question of the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has some force. Admittedly, the refrigerator in question had one year full warranty of refrigeration and five year warranty of compressor. Admittedly for the first time, the complaint regarding refrigerator in question has been made by the complainant on 17.08.2006 vide Ex.R2 which shows that the complainant made first complaint after the expiry of one year i.e. warranty period. Inspite of this fact, the OPs-Haier Appliances sent their engineers/ technicians to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question as shown from the documents Ex.A8 to Ex.A10 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 job sheets. Job Sheet Ex.A8 shows that the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to coding prob + ice cubes prob due to defect in PCB (Printed Circuit Board). The engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that the PCB to be replaced. In Ex.A9 (Ex.R9 same document) the complainant reported no cooling and no ice cubes. However, the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Hair Appliances reported that ice maker defective due to low water pressure + compressor was low pumping due to high condensation, so less cooling in freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the complainant was advised accordingly. Similarly, in job sheet Ex.A10 the complainant complained that there was no cooling, but the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances reported that the refrigerator found OK. He further gave the temperature of refrigerator +7o C and temperature of freezer -14o C. Prior to the complaint Ex.R9 dated 13.07.2007, the engineer of OPs-Haier Appliance had attended the refrigerator of the complainant on 17.08.2006, 16.09.2006, 12.03.2007, 01.05.2007, 27.05.2007, 09.06.2007, 23.06.2007 and 13.07.2007. In complaint Ex.R2 dated 17.08.2006 the engineer of the company had replaced the PCB (Printed Circuit Board). Similarly in complaint Ex.R3 dated 16.09.2006 the fan motor was replaced. In complaint Ex.R4 dated 12.03.2007 the refrigerator was OK, but water pressure was low and consumer was guided accordingly. Similarly, in complaint Ex.R5 dated 01.05.2007 the water pressure was low and customer was advised accordingly. In complaint Ex.R6 dated 27.05.2007 the stabilizer was found faulty and the same was replaced. In complaint Ex.R7 dated 09.07.2007 the PCB was replaced. In complaint Ex.R8 dated 25.06.2007 the refrigerator in question was found OK. It shows that all these complaints were attended to by the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances and in all these complaints either the complainant refused to sign or signed being unsatisfied. In Ex.R9 the complaint was with regard to ice making and less cooling, but the same was due to low water pressure and compressor having low pumping, so less cooling in the freezer and in refrigerator section was noticed and the customer was advised accordingly. During the course of trial of this complaint, this Forum again sent the engineer/ technician of the OPs-Haier Appliances to redress the grievance of the complainant, who visited his house on 16.03.2008 and found the ice maker faulty. He replaced the same and thereby noticed the freezer temperature as -5o C and refrigerator temperature as +8o C. Thus, the aforesaid evidence produced by the OPs-Haier Appliances shows that they were attending the complaints of the complainant time and again although the warranty period had already been expired. 10. The last complaint Ex.R9 (Ex.A9 same document) shows that the compressor was low pumping due to high condensation. Ld.counsel for the OPs-Haier Appliance has tried to explain the reasons of high condensation, but we do not agree with the same and direct the OPs-Haier Appliances to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question. If the defect in the refrigerator in question is rectified on the change of the compressor then the entire problem of the complainant would be redressed, but the OPs-Haier Appliances can not be burdened to replace the refrigerator in question with new one or refund its price after using the same for about 3 years by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant did not make any complaint within one year from the date of its purchase and started making complaints after 17.08.2006 i.e. after the expiry of warranty period. In these circumstances, the complainant can not be allowed to agitate for the replacement of the refrigerator in question or to refund its price. 11. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has some merit and the same is partly accepted. OPs-Haier Appliances is directed to replace the compressor of the refrigerator in question within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:15.05.2008.

......................Jagmohan Singh Chawla
......................Smt.Bhupinder Kaur