BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:24 of 2016
Date of Institution: 02.02.2016
Date of Decision:20.01.2017
Dheeraj Sharma son of Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, resident of village Jatu Luhari, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Vikrant Electronics, Opposite Nehru Park, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani, Authorized Dealer of Videocon, Voltas, Samsung, through its Proprietor.
- Samsung, Head Office: Sector-43, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower ‘C’, Vipul Tech, Square Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002, through its Manager/Authorized person.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present:- Sh. Mahender Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Proprietor on behalf of OP no. 1.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased one refrigerator of Samsung model no. N-RR2315TCAPX, vide receipt No. 15009 dated 14.05.2015 amounting to Rs. 19,000/- from OP no. 1. It is alleged that at the time of purchasing the same, OP no. 1 given an warranty card to the complainant and as per warranty card, if the aforesaid refrigerator got defective, the company would bound to repair the same & in case if the aforesaid refrigerator is not in repairable condition, the company would responsible to replace the same. It is alleged that after one week of purchasing the same, there were some cracks in the refrigerator and was not working properly. It is alleged that complainant visited at the shop of OP no. 1 and made complained about the same but OP no. 1 showed his inability to repair or replace the same by saying that it can only solved by the company i.e. OP no. 2. The complainant also served a notice on 23.11.2015 to the Ops but no reply was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for repairing the refrigerator & seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that the work of repairs and replacement of any item is to be done by the manufacturer or its authorized service centre and not by the answering respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of this Forum. It is submitted that complainant never approached to the answering Ops. It is also submitted that the Ops were and are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the refrigerator of the complainant was not working properly after sometimes of its purchase which was under warranty. The complainant visited OP no. 1 to remove the defect of the refrigerator but the OP no. 1 refused to redress the grievance of the complainant on the ground that the OP no. 2 is the manufacturing company which is responsible for it.
7. The authorized representative of OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the OP no. 1 is the authorized dealer of OP no. 2 and the work of repair and replacement of any item is done by the manufacturing company i.e. OP no. 2. He further submitted that there is no defect in the refrigerator as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.
8. Learned counsel for the OP no. 2 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant never approached to OP no. 2 for any complaint in the said refrigerator. The complainant did not lodge any complaint with the OP no. 2. The warranty provided by the company for its product is subject to certain terms and conditions.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the record. The complainant has produced the warranty card Annexure C-2, bill dated 14.05.2015 Annexure C-3, copy of legal notice Annexure C-4 and the postal receipt Annexure C-5. The refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant on 14.05.2015 for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- and said refrigerator became defective within period of warranty. Hence as per the terms and conditions of warranty, the Ops are liable to remove defects of the refrigerator, free of charge. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to remove the defects of the refrigerator and if needed the defective parts be replaced, free of cost. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. The complainant is directed to approach the Ops within 15 days for the compliance of this order and thereafter the Ops are directed to comply with this order 30 days. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 20.01.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member
