BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.163 of 2019.
Date of instt.:10.06.2019.
Date of Decision:30.12.2019.
Sudhanshu Mangla S/o Sh. Parveen Kumar, r/o Behind Milan Palace, Kaithal-136027.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized representative, Building No.1, near Modi Mill, Footover Bridge, Okhla, Phase-III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
- Care & Care through its authorized person, Shop No.15, near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan Dayalbagh, Sector-7, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present : Sh. Lovneet Bindlish, Advocate for complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased a Hairer Refrigerator bearing Model No.HRF 618 GS for the sum of Rs.51,122/- from the Op No.2 vide invoice bearing Sr.No.C&c17/18-5948 dt. 05.09.2017. It is alleged that in the month of February, 2018 the said refrigerator was not functioning properly because its motor and compressor was not working properly. The complainant approached the Ops regarding the defective refrigerator and the mechanic of Ops visited the house of complainant and he told the complainant that this refrigerator is incurable as some inherent defects are there. After getting the opinion of mechanic of Ops, the complainant approached the Ops and the Ops assured the complainant that the said refrigerator will be replaced within 2 or 3 days with the new one and took away the aforesaid refrigerator from the premises of complainant. The complainant continuously approached the Ops in this regard on 12.10.2018 vide complaint No.HR20181012108276 and on 12.11.2018 vide complaint No.HR20181112102958 and on 12.11.2018 the representative of Ops charged Rs.2440/- from the complainant to which the Ops have no right to do so. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 25.07.2019, whereas Op No.1 initially appeared and did not appear on 24.10.2019, so, the Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 24.10.2019.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased a Hairer Refrigerator in question for the sum of Rs.51,122/- from the Op No.2 vide invoice dt. 05.09.2017 as per Annexure-C2. According to the complainant, in the month of February, 2018 the said refrigerator was not functioning properly because its motor and compressor was not working properly. The complainant approached the Ops regarding the defective refrigerator and the mechanic of Ops visited the house of complainant and he told the complainant that this refrigerator is incurable as some inherent defects are there. After getting the opinion of mechanic of Ops, the complainant approached the Ops several times but the Ops did not resolve the grievances of complainant. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure C7. We have perused the mechanic report of M/s. Sharma Repair Centre dt. 23.05.2019 Annexure-C7 wherein the mechanic has reported that the refrigerator is having manufacturing defect and its motor & compressor is not working and is having incurable defects and refrigerator is not working in proper manner. So, from the said report of mechanic, it is clear that the refrigerator which was sold by the Ops to the complainant became defective within the warranty period. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops were proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. In such like circumstances, we find that the complaint filed by the complainant seems to be genuine and the Ops have sold the defective refrigerator to the complainant. The complainant has also mentioned in his complaint that the Ops took away the old refrigerator from the premises of complainant for replacement but the Ops did not do so. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to replace the defective refrigerator of the complainant with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide invoice dt. 05.09.2017 Annexure-C2. However, it is made clear that if the said refrigerator as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.51,122/- as the cost of refrigerator alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization to the complainant. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:30.12.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
