Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/297

Jal Singh Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAIER Corporate - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                     Date of institution    :16.5.14

 

CCNO-297/14                                               Date of order:28.10.16              

 

In the matter of

 

Jal Singh Chauhan,

R.Z.-32/234, Dayal Park,

Sagarpur West,

Near MCD School,

Gali No.3 New Delhi -46                                                                                       COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Haier Corporate,

Haier Appliances India Pvt.Ltd.,

Building No.1, Okhla Industrial Estate,  Phase-III,

New Delhi-20.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

Royal Traders,

D-1-B/11A, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-58.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            The Present complaint is filed by Jal Singh Chauhan, herein the complainant against Haier Corporate & Ors for compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment. 

 

 

2

The brief relevant facts for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one double door refrigerator on 30.6.13 from Opposite Party-2 vide invoice NO.8038 for sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-.  The refrigerator developed fault within two-three months and the same was informed to customer care of  the Opposite Party-1.  The Opposite Party-1 changed compressor of the refrigerator.  But the fault persisted.  The complainant again informed the Opposite Party-1 on 7.4.14  vide complaint No.DL2014040712481.   But even after filling gas the fault did not resolve.  One mechanic of Opposite Party-1 again refilled gas and told the complainant that the fault is removed.  But the fault persisted and complaint was made on  the customer care of Opposite Party-1 on 21.4.14 vide complaint No.20140421100251.  The Opposite Party-1 informed the complainant that the refrigerator is not kept at a proper place.  The complainant measured the temperature of  freezer of the refrigerator which was minus 10⁰C which should be around minus 20⁰C.  The complainant again on 24.4.14 made a complaint No.DL20140424102554 to opposite party-1.  But nobody attended the complaint.  Again on 28^th April, 2014 vide request ID DL20140428102202 complaint was lodged by the complainant.   The customer care of Opposite Party-1 sent mechanic. He came without thermometer.   The complainant asked him to come with thermometer. But thereafter nobody turned up.  The complainant made several calls to opposite party-1.  But there is no response from the Opposite Party-1.  The complainant through e-mails requested the Opposite Party-1 to resolve his grievance. But to no effect.  Hence, the present complaint for directions to Opposite Party-1 to pay  Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and for mental pain, agony and harassment.

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties.  But none appeared on their behalf.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.10.15. 

 

3

            When the complainant was asked to lead exparte evidence  , he filed affidavit dated 6.11.15 and relied upon invoice dated 30.6.13  and copies of e-mails.   He has narrated the facts of the complaint once again in the affidavit and deposed that the refrigerator developed fault within warranty,  several complaints were lodged.  But the Opposite Parties  failed to repair the refrigerator.

 

            On perusal of the documents , ,it reveals that the complainant purchased one double door refrigerator on 30.6.13 from Opposite Party-2 vide invoice NO.8038 for sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-.  The refrigerator developed fault within warranty , several complaints were made to the Opposite Party-1.   But they failed to repair the refrigerator. 

 

            We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

 

            The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged.  Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony  of the complainant. The complainant from affidavit dated 6.11.15, invoice dated 30.6.13 and e-mails has been able to show that one double door refrigerator manufactured by Opposite Party-1 was purchased by the complainant  on 30.6.13 from Opposite Party-2 vide invoice NO.8038 for sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-.  The refrigerator developed fault and  even after several complaints, the Opposite Party-1  failed to repair the refrigerator. Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party-1.  The complainant suffered loss of use of refrigerator.

 

 

4

            In the light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby  allowed.  There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-1.  Therefore, we direct Opposite Party-1 to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- cost of refrigerator alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the filing of the complaint till actual realization and Rs.5,000/-  compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses on return of the old refrigerator to the Opposite Party-1

Order pronounced on   :28.10.2016

·        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)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                         MEMBER                            PRESIDENT