Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1254/2015

Tushar Madaan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hi Tech Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sanjeev Garg

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                             

                                                Complaint No.  1254

                                                Instituted on:    12.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       19.08.2016

Tushar Madaan son of Shri Pawan Madaan, resident of Kohti No.2, Lane No.3, Mann Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Hi-tech Electronics, Dhuri Road, Phirni Road, Sangrur through its Prop/Owner.

2.             L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.51, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater, Noida 201310 through its MD/Authorised signatory.

3.             Green Dust (Reverse Logistic Co.) Head Office, Khasra-337, 1^st Floor, Chaudhary Satbir Complex, Near CRC-2, Sultanpur, MG Road, New Delhi-110 030.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri J.S.Sarao, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Tushar Madaan, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one LG refrigerator 581 lt. for Rs.57,000/- from OP number 1 vide bill number 1563 dated 22.11.2014, but the OP number 1 did not issue any warranty card.  Further case of the complainant is that after one month of its purchase, the refrigerator in question stopped to give cooling and further created unwanted noise, as such, the complainant approached the OP number 1, who advised the complainant to register the complaint with the customer care centre of OP number 3 and as such the complaint was lodged with the customer care centre, but no mechanic was sent by the company, then the complainant again approached the OP number 1 and requested to check the refrigerator, who sent the mechanic and after thorough checking, the said mechanic told that there is manufacturing defect therein in the refrigerator.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the OP number 1 supplied the complainant a defective refrigerator and the OPs failed to set right the refrigerator despite their best efforts.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.57,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party, that the product in question has already been repaired by the Green Dust and there is no defect in the refrigerator, but despite that complainant has filed the present complaint and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the OP number 1 is the franchisee of the Green Dust and the company provides the warranty of one year from the date of sale of the product in case of manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is admitted that on 3.7.2015 the complainant  approached the Op with the alleged defect of cooling in the refrigerator and after getting the complaint the same was immediately forwarded to Green Dust by the Op vide email dated 3.7.2015 and the Green Dust repaired the refrigerator on the same date. However, on 24.7.2015, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.7.2015 regarding the alleged defect, which was replied accordingly.  It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.

 

4.             In reply filed by Op number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form.  On merits, it is stated that the products are being sold to RLC by the OP without warranty and warranty card. RLC resell the products in open market at its own liability and warranty.  Further it is stated that as per article 4.5 of the Refurbish and Resale R&R) agreement between RLC and LGEIL, the RLC has undertaken that the work pertaining to all type of repairs, missing accessories, warranty management, field services, call centre management and all other services with respect to this program shall be sole and exclusive liability of RLC. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op number 2 has been denied.

 

5.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that complaint is not maintainable,  that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has failed to disclose the proper date of purchase.  Further it is stated that in fact during the warranty period from 9.11.2014 to 17.2.2016, the complainant got registered the complaint on 3.12.2014 of no cooling,  and accordingly the complaint was attended and thermal and heater fuse sensor were replaced. The complainant further lodged the complaint of ‘no cooling’ on 9.5.2014, which was duly attended and thereafter on 2.7.2015 the complaint of ‘no cooling’ was received and as such, the complaint was duly attended and the parts were replaced.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice dated 14.7.2015, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of invoice dated 22.11.2014, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 copies of emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1/2 copy of email and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit, Ex.Op2/2 copy of agreement and closed evidence.

 

7.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

8.               Ex.C-5 is the copy of the invoice dated 22.11.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the refrigerator LG 581 litre in question for Rs.57,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question and availed the services of the OP number 1 and 3.  It is further an admitted fact that the refrigerator in question was manufactured by Op number 2 and purchased by Op number 3 for resale. It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the refrigerator in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was cooling problem therein and as such the complainant approached the OP number 1 as well as OP number 3 as admitted by the Op number 3 in the written reply and further the same is evident from the copies of job sheets on record as Annexure 1 to Annexure 2, which clearly prove that the refrigerator in question developed defects within its warranty period. It is an admitted fact that the refrigerator in question was repaired by OP number 3, which was having cooling problem and some parts were also replaced. Further the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention. Moreover, in the written reply filed by Op number 3, it is clearly mentioned that  the complainant lodged the cooling problem complaints on 3.12.2014, 9.5.2014, 2.7.2015, which clearly shows that the cooling problem in the refrigerator developed/created within the warranty period of one year, but there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not make it in the working order,   as such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops number 1 and 3 only. We further are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2, as the OP number 2 had nothing to do in the matter.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 3 to repair the refrigerator in question and make it in working order by replacing any of the parts free of cost. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 19, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member