ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
Complainant purchased a fridge i.e. Godrej EON 260 wine Brand for a sum of Rs.19,000/- vide bill no. HE (15-16) dated 12.4.2015 form OP no. 1.
It is alleged by the complainant that when he asked OP -1 to open the fridge as it was packed then the OP gave him the assurance that the fridge is brand new and it is already checked & inspected.
It is further alleged by the complainant that when the fridge was delivered to his house and person started showing its demonstration, as soon as he plugged the appliance and switched it on, there was a spark and it become non-functional. It was also found that the aforesaid fridge was managed and defective from its body.
It is further alleged by the complainant that the person showing demonstration promised him that the alleged defective fridge will be replaced with a new one. The complainant also visited the shop of OP no 1 who promised to that he will soon sort out the issue and a new fridge would be given to him.
It is alleged by the complainant that, he also wrote various mails to OP no. 2 for replacing the defective fridge but nothing was done on their part to resolve his grievance.
The complainant therefore approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs through Regd. AD post dated 20.11.2015s, as the notices was not received back un-served. Service was therefore presumed to have been effected on the OPs. Since none appeared on behalf of OP s, they were ordered to be proceeded with exparte.
Complainant was filed his evidence by way of affidavits, wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.
We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record the coy of invoice dated 12.4.2015, photograph of the alleged defective refrigerator, and the copies of e-mail sent to OP no. 2 in support of his contention.
From the un-rebutted testimony of the complaint and the documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. The refrigerator supplied by OP no. 1 has an inherent defect.
In R. Sachdev v/s ICICI Bank, FA 762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held :-
“What is the use of such good or article if it losses its utility after a period of one month from its purchase. The object of the consumer protection act, it is safeguard the interest of the Consumer against the unscrupulous manufacturers or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.
In another case title Col. Ravinder Pal Brar v/s Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“The dispute between the Consumer and the service providers and trader should be ended once for all by calling upon the trader and manufacturer to refund the cost of goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumer cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another ______of litigation.
This act of OP – 2 amounts deficiency in service. We therefore direct OP – 2 as under:-
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand only) as a cost of refrigerator.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) for pain and mental agony suffered by him.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as a cost of litigation.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
