BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint Case No.100 of 2018.
Date of instt.: 09.05.2018.
Date of Decision:25.10.2018.
Mrs. Surjit Kaur wife of Sh. Sohan Lal Negi, resident of School Campus, Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya, Niwarsi, District Kurukshetra.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Haryana Digital Point, Shop No.2, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through its proprietor/Occupier.
- Videocon Industries Limited, Registered Office at 14 KM Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road, Village Chittgaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431105 through its Managing Director.
- Sh. Amit Service Engineer/Service Executive, Mobile No.9813631127, Videocon Industries Limited C/o Haryana Digital Point, Shop No.2, Sector-17, Kurukshetra.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.
Ms. Neelam, Member.
Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.
Present : Sh. Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Smt. Surjit Kaur against Haryana Digital Point and others, the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Videcon Double Door Refrigerator, bearing Model No.REFVZ293PECVB-HFK Sr. No.2106178601790513 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.26,400/- vide invoice No.48 dt. 20.10.2017. It is alleged that after about five months of its purchase, the complainant found that the basic cooling system of the refrigerator was not working properly. The complainant lodged the complaint bearing No.GUR270318041 dt. 27.03.2018 with the helpline number of Op No.2 and on her complaint, the Op No.3 visited the complainant’s residence on 29.03.2018 and after checking, the Op No.3 stated that the gas was not present due to which the refrigerator was not cooling. It is further alleged that despite observance of very poor follow up services given by Ops No.2 & 3, the complainant lodged complaint in National Consumer Forum helpline bearing complaint No.668720 dt. 31.03.2018 but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant. The complainant approached the Ops several times for repair or replacement of said refrigerator but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the refrigerator with the new one or to pay the full consideration amount of Rs.26,400/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Upon notice, the Op No.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 14.06.2018. Whereas initially Ops No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel but did not appear on 25.09.2018, so, the Ops No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 25.09.2018.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill as Ex.C1, postal receipt as Ex.C2, copy of terms and conditions as Ex.C3, copy of complaint as Ex.C4, copy of message as Ex.C5, copy of e-mail dt. 31.03.2018 as Ex.C6, copy of adhar card as Ex.C7 and copy of e-mail dt. 31.03.2018 as Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. From the cash memo, it is clear that the complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 20.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.26,400/- from the Op No.1. The grievance of the complainant is that the said refrigerator became defective within the guarantee period with the problem that the cooling system of refrigerator was not working properly. The complainant approached the Ops several times for repair or replacement of defective refrigerator but the Ops did not do so. The complainant also sent e-mail dt.31.03.2018 to the Ops, copy of which Ex.C6 & Ex.C8 are placed on the file but the Ops did not give reply of the same. The complainant has testified all the facts in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by her in the complaint. Besides the said affidavit, the complainant has supported her versions by the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. So, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found that Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OPs to replace the defective refrigerator of the complainant with the new one of the same model. However, it is made clear that if the same model of refrigerator is not available with the OPs, then the Ops are directed to pay the purchased amount of refrigerator to the complainant. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation charges. The complainant is directed to deposit the old refrigerator alongwith bill and accessories with the service center of the company. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.: 25.10.2018.
(Neelam Kashyap)
President.
(Sunil Mohan Trikha), (Neelam)
Member Member.
