BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.49 of 2016
Date of Instt. 22.01.2016
Date of Decision:03.01.2018
Pardeep Kumar Arora S/o Sh. Puran Chand R/o B37/54-B, Paramjit Ganj, District Kapurthala.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Ltd., 9th Floor, Abhijeet-1, Mithakali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380006, Gujrat, India.
Rai Enterprises Authorized Storckist for Hitachi, Jawala Petroleums, G.T. Road, Near Narinder Cinema, Jalandhar.
..….…Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. BKS Chhabra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. HS Sachdev, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is bonafide consumer and purchased the refrigerator R-VG660PND3(GGR)2Door INV.60IL, Hitachi Srl No.0113 from the OP No.2, who is the authorized stockiest of OP No.1 through bill, which is attached and evident, issued by the OP No.1 for and on behalf of the OP No.2. The said refrigerator is having the inherent defect and the same is not working properly, since the date of its purchase. The complainant brought into the notice of the OP time and again, but OP failed to rectify the same inspite of the repeated requests and reminders of the complainant. The thermostat system of the refrigerator is not working properly till today inspite of the repeated complaints lodged that there is a sweating in veg compartment of the refrigerator, initially the complainant took it lightly and not made the record regarding the complaint filed by him. The complainant got registered a complaint to the OP, vide Complaint No.15031602569 and 15032804497.
2. That the OPs are intentionally and willfully and with a view to defraud the people by way of advertisement, they are not providing good services. The complainant is consumer and covered under the Consumer Protection Act and due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the instant complaint is filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/-, i.e. the cost of the refrigerator and also be directed to pay to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental tension and agony, suffered by the complainant and further OP be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, OP No.2 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply and contested the same by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable in the present form because no cause of action ever arises in favour of the complainant for filing the present complaint and further averred that the present complaint is filed by the complainant on the basis of false and frivolous averments and even the complainant miserably failed to prove that the OP No.1 has ever failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable and even the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum for the best known reason and as such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and further admitted that the complainant purchased the said refrigerator from OP No.2 directly and also signed the agreement of warranty, which is a matter of record and as per the above said warranty/agreement card, any dispute arises in regard to said refrigerator, the Courts of Ahmedabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and further submitted that in the present complaint, unit in question is made “OK” and working properly. On merit, the purchase of the said article is admitted by the OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 Bill, Ex.C-2 Warranty Card, Ex.C-3 Terms and Conditions of Warranty and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OW1/A and closed the evidence of the OP No.1.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very minutely.
7. After going through the file, we find that the complainant has brought on the file photostat copy of the invoice, whereby he purchased the refrigerator in question from OP No.2 on 14.05.2014 for an amount of Rs.75,000/-, the copy of the invoice is Ex.C-1 and warranty card is Ex.C-2 and term and condition Ex.C-3. The factum in regard to purchase of the said refrigerator is not denied by the OP No.1, who is a manufacturing firm and as per allegations of the complainant, there is a defect in the refrigerator and he made a compliant twicely and also given the complaint numbers, which are Complaint No.15031602569 and 15032804497 and the complainant also alleged that the thermostat system of the refrigerator is not working properly till today inspite of repeated complaints lodged by the complainant. It is no where alleged by the OP No.1 that the complaint of the complainant in regard to defect in the refrigerator is not covered under the warranty period. So, it means that the product, so purchased by the complainant is well within warranty period and question remains only whether there is any defect or not, for that purpose, the complainant has brought on the file two complaint numbers, whereby he lodged the complaint in regard to defect in the refrigerator and these fact have been admitted by the OP No.1 in para No.16 of the preliminary objection by stating as “in the present complaint unit in question is made 'OK' and working properly”. The above reply itself shows that there was a defect in the refrigerator and accordingly, it was repaired by the OP and alleged that the same was made OK, but to prove this fact, the OP has to examine or bring on the file any report of the mechanic/engineer, who checked and repaired the said refrigerator, but the OP has not examined any mechanic/engineer. So, it is not established that the refrigerator, so purchased by the complainant is ever repaired by the OP, if not so then, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP because despite repeated request and making a complaint, the OP has not removed the defect in the refrigerator and as such, the complainant is entitled for getting the repair of the refrigerator from the OP.
8. The OP has took a specific plea in the written statement in preliminary objection that as per warranty agreement, the Courts in Ahemdabad shall have only exclusive jurisdiction and this Forum has no jurisdiction, but simply writing on the warranty agreement the word 'exclusive jurisdiction', is not sufficient because if there is an agreement between the parties for exclusion of any jurisdiction of the Courts/Forum, the same must be in the shape of agreement/contract, but in this case, there is no agreement/contract between the parties in regard to exclusion of the jurisdiction of any Court/Forum being a reason, the warranty card is not an agreement and moreover, it is not signed by the OP. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the plea taken by the OP is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, we find that the complainant is able to prove his case and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and both the OPs are directed to make necessary repair of the refrigerator of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order and further both the OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and also pay the litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
03.01.2018 Member President
