BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Brajesh Kumar Soni, #S-5, TBRL Hostel, Sector 29-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]Manager, Video-Con Group, SCO - 83,84,85,86, 3^rd Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

2]G.D. Services, 1280, Sec 11, Ranjeet Colony, Kharar, Mohali (Punjab)

3]Paras Enterprises, SCO 370, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                 Sh. Simranjeet Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

 OP No.2 & 3 ex-parte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL,  MEMBER

            Succinctly put, the complainant on 5.07.05 purchased Electrolux Fridge from OP-3. The said fridge carried a warranty of 5 years which was upto 5.07.2010.  On 20.09.08 the complainant noticed some defect in the fridge and informed the same to OP-3. On 8.07.09 again when there was some defect in the fridge which was informed to the OP-3. A mechanic was sent by them on 11.07.09. The said mechanic was unable to rectify the defect. On that, the complainant told the mechanic that the defect had not been properly rectified, as the body of the fridge was overheated because the compressor was not fitted properly. The said mechanic assured him that in next two and a half hours, it would start functioning properly. The complainant noticed that the fridge stopped working after two and a half hours. He again reported the same to the said mechanic on phone but he never attended that complaint. The above fact was immediately informed to the OP-3, but after so many follow-ups, no body turned up. Again he lodged a complaint on 18.07.09 to service centre. After that the same mechanic as mentioned above came and checked the fridge and told that a big defect had occurred in the fridge and it needed to be taken to the workshop and told that he would come tomorrow to take the fridge to workshop but he never came after that. Again on 19.07.09, he lodged a complaint to OP-1 but was of no use. On 30.07.09 a mechanic from some other service centre came and checked the fridge and told the complainant that the old mechanic had not done the service properly, that is why the said defect had occurred. He further told that there was no gas in the fridge and for it he would charge the gas and service charges. The complainant contacted the OPs so many times to get the fridge repaired but was of no use due to which he suffered a lot of mental and physical harassment. The fridge developed regular defects after 20.09.09.  The contention of the complainant is that he never got the proper services of the OP-3 in time and was harassed, whenever their services were required After that the complainant purchased a new fridge for Rs.9,500/- from some other company.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. Proxy advocate for OP-1 appeared and submitted written reply and evidence. None appeared on behalf of the OP-2 and OP-3.  Accordingly they were proceeded ex-parte. 

3.             In their written reply OP-1 submitted that it was only the compressor which carried an additional warrantee of 48 months from the date of purchase i.e. from 5.07.2005. The complainant got the refrigerator opened/repaired from unauthorized persons and in such a case warrantee given by the company became void. As such the complainant was not entitled to even the warrantee on the compressor. OP-1 submitted that they were still ready and willing to carry out the necessary repairs or to replace the compressor, if there was any defect, whereas with regard to any other defect, the refrigerator was out of warrantee.  The complainant on the other hand declined the above service stated by OP-1. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and Learned Counsel for OP-1 and have also perused the record. 

6.             The complainant has produced Annexure C-1 to prove that he purchased a brand new Electrolux fridge from OP-3, which carried a warranty of one year and Annexure-5 shows that the fridge carried a warranty of 12 months + 48 months additional warranty for the compressor. The main grouse of the complainant is that the aforesaid compressor of the fridge became defective on 20.09.08, which was informed to the OP-3.  A mechanic was sent by them on 11.07.09 but he could not rectify the defect. The body of the fridge was overheated because the compressor was not fitted properly in the fridge. Thereafter the fridge developed other defects time and again due to which the complainant approached service centre thrice to get the defect rectified. Annexure C-2 to C-4 are the copies of the job sheets which categorically prove that the complainant had handed over the fridge to OP-2 for carrying out the necessary repairs.  OP-2 tried their level best to repair the machine but its compressor did not function properly even after repairs.  Needless to mention that the fridge was purchased on 05.07.05 and the defect arose in the compressor on 20.09.08 was well within the warrantee period provided on the Electrolux fridge. OP-2 was therefore bound to get it repaired, which he failed to do and rather thrust this unwanted litigation on the complainant.  OP-2 and OP-3 have not controverted any of the contentions, as nobody appeared for them after service and were proceeded against exparte.  Only OP-1 has appeared.

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  OP-1 is directed to replace the defective compressor of the fridge and return the same to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation. However, with regard to any other defect in the fridge, the complainant has to pay from his own pocket because as per the norms of the company the fridge was under warranty of only one year i.e. till 4.07.06.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.