BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 478 of 2015
Date of Institution: 3.8.2015
Date of Decision :22.03.2016
Ravinder Pathak son of Sh. Mehnga Ram Pathak, resident of Ward No.11, Near Dr.Gurdial Clinic, VPO Rajasansi,Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Kail Limited, Auto Car Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad-431005, Maharashtra,India through its Director
- M/s. Tek Care India Pvt.Ltd., 15 K.M. Stone, Aurangabad, Paithan Road, Village Chitegaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad 431105 (Maharashtra) Customer Care Deptt. of Kail Ltd., with Customer Care No. 39404040 through its General Manager
- S.K.Electronics, Near Dr.Gurdial , Main Bazar, Rajasansi, Amritsar 143101 through its Proprietor
- Kelvinator Service Centre, 108-A, Backside Apna Departmental Store, Tilak Nagar, Near Shivala Mandir, Batala Road, Amritsar local service centre under M/s. Tek Care India Pvt.Ltd, through its Proprietor
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Rohit Sharma,Advocate
For Opposite parties No.1 to 4 :Sh. Raman Kumar, Area Service Manager
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
1. Present complaint has been filed by Ravinder Pathak under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased 325 liter Kelvinator fridge from opposite party No.3 on 23.5.2014 with warranty of one year of the fridge and five years warranty of compressor. According to the complainant after three days from purchasing of the fridge, he found that the door of the fridge was not working properly. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and on the advice of opposite party No.3, he approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 and lodged complaint at customer care phone number. Then after about 3 months, on 23.8.2014, opposite party No.2 replaced the fridge of the complainant with new one and assured the complainant that the new fridge will not give any problem. After a few months on 11.2.2015 the complainant noticed that replaced fridge is in damaged condition. The internal body of the fridge is damaged. There were cracks in the liner of shelves. So the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 on 12.2.2015 on its customer care number and reported the problem in the fridge. Opposite party No.2 also sent complaint No. JAL 1202150045 through mobile message . On the same day mechanic Mr.Jagdish came to attend the complaint and checked the refrigerator and assured to the complainant that his fridge would be replaced. The complainant received message on mobile phone from opposite party No.2 that “your call (complaint) has been cancelled (set working fine)” Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 10.3.2015 and opposite party again gave complaint No. JAL 1003150015 . Again the opposite party cancelled his call (complaint) without taking any appropriate action. Thereafter on 7.5.2015 complainant again approached opposite party No.2 on its customer care number . Opposite party No.2 again sent their mechanic,who checked the refrigerator . But again the opposite party neither repaired the fridge nor replaced the same with new one. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to either replace the fridge or to refund the price of the fridge i.e. Rs. 17400/-. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that a complaint was registered on 26.5.2014 stating some problem in the door of the refrigerator which was attended and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was submitted that complainant registered a call on 10.6.2014 stating noise problem in the door of the refrigerator which was also attended and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further, it was brought to the notice of the company that there was crack in the liner of the product which was duly inspected and the product was replaced free of cost on 28.8.2014. It was submitted that complainant noticed a crack in the liner and a complaint was registered on 12.2.2015 which was cancelled as the complainant produced a fake bill to the service engineer. Again complainant registered a call on 10.3.2015 and service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the product, who submitted its report that the liner damage was not a manufacturing defect however, it was a physical damage due to which the compliant call was subsequently cancelled. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.
4. Opposite parties did not lead any evidence, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte. However, Sh. Raman Kumar, Area Service Manager appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 4 on 21.3.2016 and made statement that opposite parties are ready to repair the refrigerator of the complainant within 10 days from today.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and Representative on behalf of the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant , it is clear that complainant purchased Kelvinator Fridge from opposite party No.3 on 23.5.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-5 for a sum of Rs. 17400/- with warranty of one year of the fridge and five years warranty of compressor. The complainant submitted that after three days from purchasing of the fridge, the complainant found that the door of the fridge was not working properly. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and on the advice of opposite party No.3, he approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 and lodged complaint at customer care phone number. Then after about 3 months on 23.8.2014, opposite party No.2 replaced the fridge of the complainant with new one and assured the complainant that the new fridge will not give any problem. After a few months on 11.2.2015 the complainant noticed that replaced fridge is in damaged condition. The internal body of the fridge is damaged. There were cracks in the liner of shelf grooves. So the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 on 12.2.2015 on its customer care number and reported the problem in the fridge. Opposite party No.2 also sent complaint No. JAL 1202150045 through mobile message . On the same day mechanic Mr.Jagdish came to attend the complaint and checked the refrigerator and assured to the complainant that his fridge would be replaced. The complainant received message on mobile phone from opposite party No.2 that “your call (complaint) has been cancelled (set working fine)” Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 10.3.2015 and opposite party again gave complaint No. JAL 1003150015 . Again the opposite party cancelled his call (complaint) without taking any appropriate action. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 on its customer care number on 7.5.2015. Again on 8.5.2015 mechanic Mr.Jagdish came and checked the refrigerator . But again the opposite party neither repaired the fridge nor replaced the same with new one. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas case of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complaint was received from the complainant on system dated 26.5.2014 stating some problem in the door of the fridge which was attended and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant and the refrigerator of the complainant was replaced with new one. Again complaint was received on 10.6.2014 stating noise problem in the door of the refrigerator. Again the refrigerator of the complainant was inspected and it was replaced with new one free of cost on 28.8.2014. On 12.2.2015 complainant reported that he noticed a crack in the liner of the fridge and produced a fake bill to the service engineer. Further a call was registered on 10.3.2015. The service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the product. The report submitted by the engineer clearly states that the liner damage was not a manufacturing defect. However, it was a physical damage due to which the call/complaint of the complainant was subsequently cancelled because the damage was due to misuse of the fridge by the complainant. Again the complainant lodged complaint regarding physical damage which was also cancelled after checking of the Refrigerator of the complainant. The opposite party also produced photographs of the internal part of the Refrigerator which show a small crack on the liner due to physical mishandling of the Refrigerator. Apart from this Sh. Raman Kumar, Area Service Incharge of opposite party No.1 got recorded his statement that opposite parties are ready to repair the Refrigerator of the complainant within 10 days as a goodwill gesture. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that under these circumstances , there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Kelvinator Refrigerator from opposite party No.3 on 23.5.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-5 for a sum of Rs. 17,400/-. The said fridge had problem in the door which was not working properly. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 , authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 through customer care telephone. The said complaint was duly attended and the fridge was repaired. However, after that the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 with complaint regarding door of the fridge. Then opposite party No.2 replaced the fridge of the complainant with new one on 23.8.2014 . The complainant used the said fridge for about 6 months . However, on 11.2.2015 the complainant lodged complaint with opposite party No.2 that there is crack in the liner of the fridge. Opposite party No.2 sent their service engineer, who attended the complaint of the complainant and checked the refrigerator and submitted its report. The said engineer reported that the liner damage was not a manufacturing defect but it is a physical damage due to mishandling of product. Resultantly complaint of the complainant was cancelled. Both the parties have produced on record the photographs of the refrigerator . There was only crack on the lines of shelf grooves of the fridge of the complainant. The complainant could not produce any evidence to prove any inherent manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question which is beyond repair. As such the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the fridge or refund of the price of the refrigerator in question. However, as the complaint has been filed within warranty period, as such the complainant is entitled to repair of the refrigerator without charging any amount by the opposite parties.
9. Sh. Raman Kumar, Area Service Manager of opposite party No.1 appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 4 got recorded his statement that the opposite parties are ready to repair the refrigerator of the complainant within 10 days from today. So the present complaint is disposed of with the directions to the opposite parties to repair the refrigerator of the complainant and make it fully functional within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
22.03.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ (Anoop Sharma) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
