Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
- Mr.D.P.Sharma, complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant purchased one Hitachi Refrigerator from opposite party No.2 vide transaction No. SLP02A075-10033635 dated 4.4.2015 for Rs. 42,999/- with extended warranty effected till 3.4.2018. The said refrigerator became non functional on 15.7.2015 and complaint to that effect was made to opposite party No.3 vide complaint No. 15072902701. The engineer from opposite party No.3 visited the complainant and tried to rectify the refrigerator but the same started giving loud sounds and cooling was not proper and at the top section there was no cooling and freezing. Thereafter many complaints were lodged with the opposite parties i.e. complaints No. 16102301349 dated 23.10.2016, 16102001172 dated 20.10.2016, 16081201897 dated 5.11.2016 and 16080601342 dated 6.8.2016, but to no avail. The opposite party No.3 even changed the compressor of the refrigerator on 17.8.2016. Finally in the month of March 2017 the refrigerator became dead and complaint No. 17032905937 dated 29.3.2017 was lodged but to no effect. The said acts of the opposite parties in not repairing the refrigerator to the satisfaction of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite parties be directed to set right the refrigerator to the satisfaction of the complainant or in the alternative to replace the refrigerator with the better model of the same size or refund Rs. 42,999/- alongwith interest from the date of payment till realization
- Opposite parties be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that opposite party No.2 is a reputed company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons with a well established brand name in the sector of electronics retail. It was admitted that the complainant had bought the Hitachi Refrigerator bearing model No. FF 39L R-SC37B BK vide Invoice No. SLF02A075010033635 on 4.4.2015. It was also admitted that the complainant was informed that the warranty period provided by the manufacturer for the said product was 12 months i.e. till 3.4.2016 and the complainant had also extended warranty for further 2 years i.e. till 3.4.2018. The complainant never informed opposite party No.2 regarding any defect in the product as opposite party No.2 was never in receipt of any complaint with regards to the said product from the complainant. As a retailer the opposite party No.2 cannot be held liable of any defect in the said product under manufacturers warranty by the manufacturer . The repairing of the said product is the responsibility of the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. On the other hand opposite parties No.1 & 3 did not opt to put in appearance , as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copies of invoices Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Pritam Singh, Asstt.Department Manager of opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that complainant purchased one Hitachi Refrigerator from opposite party No.2 vide transaction No. SLP02A075-10033635 dated 4.4.2015 for Rs. 42,999/- with extended warranty effected till 3.4.2018. Copy of Invoice accounts for Ex.C-3 on record. It was the case of the complainant that the said refrigerator became non functional on 15.7.2015 and in this regard complainant lodged complaint with opposite party No.3 vide complaint No. 15072902701 dated 30.7.2015. On the said complaint, the engineer from opposite party No.3 visited the complainant and tried to rectify the refrigerator but the same started giving loud sounds and cooling was not proper and at the top section there was no cooling and freezing. Thereafter many complaints were lodged with the opposite parties i.e. complaints No. 16102301349 dated 23.10.2016, 16102001172 dated 20.10.2016, 16081201897 dated 5.11.2016 and 16080601342 dated 6.8.2016, but to no avail. On the said complaint, opposite party No.3 has issued an invoice dated 17.8.2016 vide which opposite party No.3 has provided the service to the complainant by charging an amount of Rs. 3000/- from the complainant even though the complainant has got extended his warranty till 3.4.2018. So charging of amount on the repair of the product during warranty period itself proves that the refrigerator was having problems during warranty period and the defects in the refrigerator could not be removed by the opposite parties even though filing of so many complaints lodged with the opposite parties . To prove his case complainant has given the details of the averments made in the complaint regarding lodging of complaints with the opposite parties on different dates . However, the evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite parties No.1 & 3, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and thereby the opposite parties No.1 & 3 impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite parties had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties No.1 & 3 amounts to deficiency in service. All this shows that the Refrigerator purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties is not repairable, as such it has inherent manufacturing defects. So the opposite parties are liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model. However, the compensation claimed by the complainant appears to be quite exhorbitant and exaggerated. It is settled principle of law that the compensation has to be granted in commensuration to the loss occurred to the complainant. Exhorbitant compensation cannot be granted to enrich a party at the cost of the other .
7. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed either to replace the Refrigerator of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or refund the price of the Refrigerator i.e. Rs. 42,999/- ( Rs. Forty two thousand nine hundred ninety nine ) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- ( Rs. Three thousand only) to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/-. Since opposite party No.2 is retailer and this Forum has passed the order to replace or refund the price of the product by manufacturer and service centre i.e. opposite parties No.1 & 3, hence, complaint against opposite party No.2 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 10.8.2017
