BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.188 of 2017
Date of Institution: 31.7.2017
Date of Decision: 9.2.2018
Krishan Kumar, aged 52 years, son of Shri Birbal Ram, resident of village Rampura Dhillon, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. L.P. Electronics, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
2. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd., Appliance Division, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai- 400 079, through its authorized signatory.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pawan Bishnoi, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased a Godrej refrigerator Model GDA 19A1(3) 160 403 3133 from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.1659 dated 1.3.2017 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is manufactured by op no.2. That at the time of purchase of this refrigerator, the op no.1 assured about its good quality and performance and gave 10 years warranty against all manufacturing defects. That after purchase of this refrigerator, same was got installed by op no.1 at the premises of complainant. It is further averred that on 16.6.2017 i.e. after about 3½ months of purchasing the said refrigerator and its use, the same developed defect therein and stopped working. The complainant reported the same to op no.1 whereupon op no.1 assured that he will get the same checked up from its mechanic, but op no.1 did not send any mechanic to the premises of complainant. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with op no.1 on its toll free number and complaint of complainant was registered as Sr. No.809874 and the complainant was told that the mechanic will be sent at his premises. Thereafter, mechanic of ops came to the premises of complainant and checked the said refrigerator and stated that same has a manufacturing defect and thus, the same cannot be set in order and that the same requires replacement and further assured that the same will be got replaced with a new one. That since thereafter, the complainant has visited to op no.1 on many occasions and requested for replacement of the above defective refrigerator with a new one but op no.1 always put off the matter with one pretext or the other. The said refrigerator is still lying in its defective condition and complainant is unable to make the best use of the same for which he has incurred such an huge amount and complainant has suffered harassment and mental pain. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.
3. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that answering op no.2 is a leading manufacturer of electronic products and commodities for past several decades and manufactures world class products. It is further submitted that it is wrong that the service engineer who visited the premises of complainant ever told that the refrigerator bears any manufacturing defect or the company shall give replacement of the said refrigerator. Infact, the refrigerator of the complainant was burnt due to external factors and the service engineer who visited the premises of complainant found no model and serial no. over the refrigerator. The complainant had been told that no replacement can be given as the refrigerator has burnt due to some external cause. All the other contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill Ex.C1 and catalogue Ex.C2. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 tendered its reply Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is proved on record that complainant had purchased a refrigerator on 1.3.2017 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- from opposite party no.1 vide bill Ex.C1. It is also proved fact on record that same is not working properly and some defect developed in its working. The complainant approached the op no.1 and also lodged complaint on toll free number of company and complaint of the complainant was registered at Sr. No.809874 and complainant was told that the mechanic will be sent at his premises. Then mechanic of ops who checked the refrigerator asked that refrigerator has some manufacturing defect but however mechanic did not give his opinion about manufacturing defect in writing.
7. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 has tendered its reply in evidence as Ex.R1. It is settled principle of law that without specific expert opinion, no order can be passed for replacement of the product since complainant has not produced on record any expert opinion that refrigerator in question is having any manufacturing defect. But however, complainant is entitled for repair of the product for which it is legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repair and to make the refrigerator defect free.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the refrigerator in question of the complainant and to make the same defect free without any cost within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:9.2.2018. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
