Delhi

East Delhi

CC/262/2015

Ajay - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAZRAT VISION - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.262/15

AJAY KUMAR ARORA

R/0 A-1, MANGLA APPTS.

53, 1.P. EXTN. DELHI-110092

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

1. HAZRAT VISION

19-20, LALITA PARK

VIKAS MARG, DELHI-110092

2.  GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

GODREJ BHAWAN, 2^ND FLOOR,

SHER SHAHSURI MARG,

OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110020

                                                                                                                           ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 16.04.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 21.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 22.11.2017

CORUM:

Shri SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

ORDER BY:  HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, against Hazrat Vision (OP-1) and Godrej & boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (OP-2), with the allegations of deficiency in services.

The facts of the present complaint are that on 27.04.2014, the complainant purchased one Godrej Refrigerator 330 litres for Rs. 24,700/- vide invoice no. 56429. It is stated that on the very first day Refrigerator was defective, due to which noise of the compressor was beyond toleration and there was also dent on the front door of the Refrigerator. The complainant immediately on 28.04.2014 lodged complaint vides no. 28042231223121. Similarly, on 30.04.2014, through complaint no. 28044223819, on 02.05.2014 complaint no. 0205226939 and on 09.04.2014 vide complaint no. 0904174668, but his grievance was not addressed as per his satisfaction. It is further been stated that the complainant through E-mails dated 22.05. 2014, 03.05.2014 & 10.04.2015 had sought for redressal of his complaints which were not attended. The complainant has stated that he requested Sh. Nitin Verma, Sh. Pranjal Verma for solving the problem but despite assurance the grievance was not addressed. It has also been stated that the complainant got the Refrigerator checked by private fridge mechanic who informed the complainant that there was a problem in the compressor of the fridge. It has been stated by the complainant that the volume of the noise has increased beyond tolerance thereby causing great inconvenience. The complaints made vide E.mails dated 10.06.2014, 12.06.2014, 17.07.2014 and 10.04.2015 remained unaddressed. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the OPs the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice there by praying for refund of the cost of the Refrigerator being Rs.24,700/- along with 12% interest, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

The complainant has annexed the complaint report/invoice dated 27.04.2014, letter dated 19.05.2014, 04.06.2014 to Sh. Pranjal Sharma, DGM (Service) along with postal receipt, E.mails to

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs, however, neither any reply was filed nor anyone appeared on behalf of OP-1. Hence, they were proceeded exparte.

OP-2 in their reply stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator and there was no privity of contract between the respondent and complainant. It was also submitted that the complaint involved complex question of law and facts thus could not be decided on summary basis. Hence, the same was liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that the complaint on 28.04.2014 was promptly attended by the service team. It was also submitted that the complainant had made complaint six times only and each and every complaint was addressed. It was further submitted that the complaints being technical in nature were attended by service team and the said Refrigerator was functioning properly since it’s purchase. Rests of the contents of the complaint were denied and dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost prayed for.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he deposed the contents of the complaint and got exhibited invoice as Ex. C-1, service reports as Ex. C-2 and E.mails (colly) as Ex. C-3 and legal notice as Ex. C-10.

OP-2 examined Sh. Ajay Mathur, Branch Manager who stated that neither there was any deficiency in service on their part nor there was any manufacturing defect in Refrigerator.

We have heard the argument on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP-2 and have perused the material placed on record. It is admitted fact fact that the Refrigerator was purchased by complainant on 27.04.2014 and it is also an admitted fact that the complaint was lodged immediately on the next day I.e. 28.04.2014 which was attended by the technician of OP-2. OP in their reply as well as in their evidence have stated that the complaint made on 17.05.2014, 21.05.2014, 17.12.2014, 10.04.2015 were promptly attended. If we take a look over all remarks, it is seen that dent on the door happened post first complaint. In the third complaint dated 20.05.2014 which was attended on 21.05.2014, the motor was changed as well as the main door was also changed as a special gesture. The OP-2 has not filed on record even single job sheet to substantiate their assertion. During the course of arguments it was submitted by the counsel for OP that the defect in the refrigerator had been removed which was vehemently opposed by the complainant. It is admitted that the first complaint was lodged immediately after the purchase and subsequently with respect to the noise of the compressor. It seems that Refrigerator sold by OP-1, the retailer and manufactured by OP-2 had some inherent defect for which the complainant was regularly seeking redressal. It is not expected that when a person buys a product has to seek redressal of the complaint immediately after purchase causing mental pain and agony, thereby resulting in deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

Hence, the present complaint is allowed and OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to refund Rs. 24,700/- with 7% interest from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. We also award Rs.7,500/- as compensation  for harassment inclusive litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

DR P.N.TIWARI                                                                               HARPREET KAUR CHARYA                              

    MEMBER                                                                                                     MEMBER      

SUKHDEV SINGH

PRESIDENT