Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/175

Ekam Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

J. S Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

LALIT MAINI

08 Jan 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         175      

Date of Institution :   1.06.2017

Date of Decision :      8.01.2019

Ekam Sandhu s/o Sukhwinder Singh, r/o VPO Chotiyan Kalan, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. J S Electronics, Near Axis Bank, Faridkot through its proprietor.
2. Head Office Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122202 through its MD.

..........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Lalit Maini, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective refrigerator and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.25,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a refrigerator make Samsung alongwith some other articles from OP-1 vide bill no.2114 dt 5.10.2013 for Rs.73,500/-. The cost price of said refrigerator was 28,000/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 gave warranty of five years for said refrigerator. It is contended that in June, 2016 due to some manufacturing defect, said article stopped working at once and complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1. On several requests by complainant, OP-1 sent his mechanic to inspect the refrigerator, who disclosed that there is some manufacturing defect in refrigerator, which cannot be removed and only solution to this problem is to replace the said refrigerator. Complainant made several requests to OPs to replace the defective refrigerator with new one, but they did not pay any heed to his requests. Thereafter, complainant served legal notice dt 22.12.2016 to OPs, but that also bore no fruit as they did not bother to give reply to the notice. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to provide new refrigerator of same model to him and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                              Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.06.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                 On receipt of notice, OP-1  and 2  filed reply taking preliminary objections that prior to filing the present complaint, complainant has not lodged any complaint regarding defect in his refrigerator to the OPs or their authorised service centre and even there is no repair history of refrigerator in question which clears that said refrigerator is working properly for the last more than 3 years. Moreover, warranty for the product was for only year, but it is working satisfactorily since the day of its purchase. Even complainant has not brought on record any expert evidence to prove that there is any defect in said refrigerator. Refund or replacement sought by complainant is not permissible as defect alleged by complainant did not occur in the said refrigerator during the warranty period and till date, complainant has not lodged any complain regarding any defect in said refrigerator. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Forum that complainant purchased the said article from their authorized dealer i.e Op-1. As per OPs the warranty was only for one year and only compressor bore the warranty for four years. They have denied all the allegations being wrong and asserted that complainant never approached them regarding any defect in his refrigerator and they never sent any mechanic to the house of complainant for the purpose of inspection or repair of said article. OPs reiterated that complainant never lodged any complaint regarding defect in his refrigerator and also averred that no cause of action arises against OPs. It is denied that complainant suffered any harassment or mental agony due to OPs as there is no manufacturing defect in said refrigerator. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 5                                         Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Boss as Ex OP-1,2/1 and then, closed the same.

7                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                                       From the careful perusal of record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator worth 28,000/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 gave warranty of five years, but in June, 2016 due to some manufacturing defect, said article stopped working at once and complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1. On several requests by complainant, OP-1 sent his mechanic to inspect the refrigerator, who disclosed that there is some manufacturing defect in refrigerator, which cannot be removed and only solution to this problem is to replace the defective refrigerator. Despite repeated requests to OPs to replace the defective refrigerator with new one, they did not pay any heed to his requests. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs, but that also bore no fruit as they did not bother to give reply to the notice. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the complaint and for directing OPs to provide new refrigerator of same model to him alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. OPs have sternly refuted all the allegations of complainant and asserted that prior to filing the present complaint, complainant has not lodged any complaint regarding defect in his refrigerator to the OPs or their authorised service centre and even there is no repair history of refrigerator in question which clears that said refrigerator is working properly for the last more than 3 years. Moreover, warranty for the product was for only year and it is working satisfactorily since the day of its purchase. Even complainant has not brought on record any expert evidence to prove that there is any defect in said refrigerator. Refund or replacement is not permissible as there is no defect in said refrigerator. As per OPs the warranty was only for one year and only compressor bore the warranty for four years. They have denied all the allegations being wrong and asserted that complainant never approached them regarding any defect in his refrigerator and they never sent any mechanic to the house of complainant for the purpose of inspection or repair of said article. OPs reiterated that complainant never lodged any complaint regarding defect in his refrigerator and no cause of action arises against them. Complainant has not suffered any harassment or mental agony due to OPs as there is no manufacturing defect in said refrigerator. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                          From the careful perusal of evidence and record placed on file, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that OPs did not provide them effective repairs as per their expectations. Though complainant immediately reported the matter regarding defect in refrigerator to OPs, but they sent the mechanic on several requests by complainant and even when mechanic told that there is some defect which cannot be repaired, Ops did not redress the grievance of complainant by making replacement of said defective part. We are of considered opinion that action of OPs in not providing requisite services by not doing effective repairs upto the satisfaction of complainant, amounts to deficiency in service and complainant has suffered harassment due to this act of OPs.

10                                          In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to replace the refrigerator in question with new one of same model alongwith fresh warranty. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,500/- jointly and severally to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him.  Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 8.01.2019

Member                           President                                          (Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)