Haryana

Kurukshetra

65/2018

Bajrang - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahavir Elec - Opp.Party(s)

Saandeep Bibyan

13 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.65 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 26.03.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:13.06.2018.

Shri Bajrang Bali Milk Dairy, Amin Road, Kurukshetra through its proprietor Anil Kumar Chopra, S/o Dharam Pal Chopra, R/o Plot No.23, near KR Palace, Vishwas Nagar, Tehsil Thanesar.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Mahavir Electrical Co. 27, Arya Samaj Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
2. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.713-716, 7^th Floor, JMD Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana-122018 through its Manager. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Sandeep Bibyan, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Ops exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Shri Bajrang Bali Milk Dairy through its proprietor Anil Kumar against Mahavir Electrical and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a refrigerator make Celfrost Model No.CFKG-320 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.3487 dt. 29.03.2017.  It is alleged that since the date of its purchase, the said refrigerator was not cooling and not working properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to repair the said refrigerator or to replace the same with the new one but the Ops did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the refrigerator in question with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.28,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 08.05.2018.

4.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

5.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 29.03.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.28,000/-. From the pleadings and arguments advanced by ld. counsel for the complainant, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period.  The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit and cash memo.  There is no rebuttal on the part of Ops as they were proceeded exparte.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it repaired from the Op No.2.

6.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed partly and we direct the OP No.2 to repair the refrigerator in question and to rectify the defects of the refrigerator free of cost.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:13.06.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Anamika Gupta)             

                                        Member