Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/697/2021

Roopinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Modern Sales. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. shiv Pratap S. Mann

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	697 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	12.10.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	17.11.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Roopinder Singh c/o Capital Construction,  Plot No.D-215, Phase-8-B, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar (PB.)

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Modern Sales, SCO No.1066, Sector 22, Chandigarh

2]  Haier, Branch Office, SCO No.256, 2^nd Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh 160047

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Sh.Shiv Prtap S. Mann, Counsel for the     complainant     along with complainant in person.

 

OP No.1 exparte.

 

Sh.Anil Kumar, Representative of OP No.2.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he purchased a Haier Refrigerator Model Haier RFB-738BG for a total amount of Rs.85000/- vide Bill NO.MS-7616, dated 26.6.2020.  It is stated that at the time of selling, the OP NO.1 assured of its top quality material, design and trouble free service and it carried 5 years warranty on the whole produce and 10 years warranty on the compressor.  It is submitted that soon after purchase, the gas kit of the refrigerator started to fall apart, the door handle too cracked/chipped and it was not giving efficient cooling.  The matter was reported to the OPs a number of time by sending several mails followed by sending legal notice dated 14.6.2021 (Ann.A-2) but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to take back the refrigerator and refund its cost of Rs.85,000/- with interest as well as harassment charges and legal charges.

 

2]       The OP No.1 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.11.2022

         The OP No.2 put in appearance and filed their written version stating that as per their record the refrigerator in question has been purchased by the complainant on 08.10.2019 and it was installed by their engineers on that very day/8.10.2019.  It is submitted that the complainant lodged complaint on 29.11.2020 regarding abnormal noise coming out from the refrigerator, so the defrost sensor was reply and the set was running fine.  It is also submitted that the complainant lodged another complaint on 26.4.2021 about door problem and on checking the upright beam assembly and accessories were found damaged, which was out of warranty but the complainant refused to pay for the same despite the fact that the set was out of warranty.  It is stated that the answering OP has provided efficient after sale service for all its products.  Lastly the OP No.2 has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs No.2 made in their written version.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record.

 

6]       The question to be decided whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in selling the refrigerator in question or not?

7]       To find out answer to this issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

         The complainant has alleged that the refrigerator in question started malfunctioning soon after its purchase.  The exchange of emails between the complainants and OPs is proved on record whereby the complainant raised his grievance with OPs and showing dissatisfaction and problem in the product in question.

 

8]       Further, the OP No.1/Seller despite being duly served, did not come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint, which raised a reasonable presumption that it has failed to render due service to the complainant and has nothing to contradict meaning thereby that the OP No.1 has duly admitted the claim of the complainant.  Further the OP No.2 has also admitted the repair of the refrigerator. Therefore, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 is clearly made out, which certainly has caused harassment, mental agony and loss to the complainants.

 

9]      Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that as the product in question becomes defective soon after its purchase, therefore, the complainant has lost faith upon the product in question and thus, it would be in interest of justice and equity to direct OPs to refund its price to the complainant instead of its repairs.

 

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to refund the price of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.85,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase/26.6.2020 (Ann.C-1) till its actual realization. The complainant shall return the refrigerator in question along with its accessories to the OPs on receipt of the awarded amount.

 

         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

11]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17.11.2023                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER