BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.674 of 2014
Date of institution: 25.11.2014
Date of Decision: 18.06.2015
Jasbir Chand, Shop No.15, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh 160 012.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Mongia & Co. (Mfg. Div.) through its authorized signatory/Partner, Plot No.25/8, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.
Second Address:
Works: Village Saidpura, Barwala Road, Link Road, Haripur Hinduan, Derabassi, District Mohali (Pb.).
2. Sandeep Mongia c/o Mongia & Co. (Mfg. Div.), Plot No.25/8, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person with counsel Sh.Sudesh Kumar.
Shri Sandeep Monia for himself for OP No.2 and OP No.1.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’):
(a) to replace the defective deep freezer with a new one or to refund the amount for purchase its with interest @ 18% per annum.
(b) to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture and harassment.
(c) to pay him Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation.
The case of the complainant is that on 02.05.2013 he purchased a deep freezer from OP No.1 for Rs.22,860/- vide bill and also paid an amount of Rs.1,020/- as carrier charges vide receipt Ex.C-2. It has been averred that immediately after purchase, the deep freezer started giving problem regarding cooling for which he approached OP No.1. OP No.1 rectified the defect and assured that if any defect was not removed, it will replace the deep freezer. However, the defect in the deep freezer still persisted and when the complainant informed the OPs, OP No.2 demanded Rs.15,000/- for removing the defect despite the fact that the same was under warranty. The complainant also submitted a written complaint dated 18.02.2014 Ex.C-3 to OP No.1 but to no avail. Thus, on these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. After admission of the complaint, the notice was issued to the OPs, who put in their appearance before the Forum through counsel. Written reply has been filed. In the reply the OPs have admitted having sold the deep freezer on 02.05.2013 to the complainant and the same is being used by the complainant till date. The warranty of the deep freezer had expired on 01.05.2014. The OPs have further admitted having received the complaint regarding non functioning of the deep freezer and have admitted having attended to the complaint on 12.07.2013. Since the deep freezer was within the warranty the complaint has been attended free of cost and after inspection it was found that there was no malfunctioning of the deep freezer. Rather the complainant was mishandling the deep freezer as he was stuffing freshly slotted meat in the deep freezer without pre chilling and without packing. Further there was no ventilation in the shop where the deep freezer was kept. The complainant even stored some liquid material in the deep freezer. Upon inspection it was found that the complainant was not operating the deep freezer as per recommended procedure shown in the Operating Manual. The temperature of the deep freezer was verified at 15.4 degree C by the technician and the time to achieve the temperature after complete shutdown was verified at 1400 hours. It was found that the complainant was storing liquid materials like a bucket full of soup and 2 litre water bottles in the bottom chamber of the deep freezer. Once this complaint has been attended to by the OPs on 12.07.2013, 9 months thereafter no complaint was ever received regarding malfunctioning of the freezer. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs on 12.02.2014 with new request to provide additional compressor to the freezer so that he can achieve the temperature within 10 hours instead of 14 hours. As per the complainant that once he defrosts the machine, he is unable to run it for 8 hours for pre-cooling. Te OPs have not agreed to the request of the complainant for providing additional compressor which is out of scope of warranty of the freezer and in this regard the OPs have already vide letter dated 24.02.2014 informed the complainant. The complainant has filed the false complaint against the Ops alleging demand of Rs.15,000/- for repair of the machine within the warranty period. However, the OPs have admitted that if in case of any defect in any component i.e. stainless steel sheets non magnetic 202 grade, puff insulation, Copeland compressor, fan motor, thermostat, electric components etc. the complainant was provided free of charge replacement and repairs during the one year period of warranty. Thus, denying allegation of manufacturing defect in the deep freezer, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and affidavit of Hardeep Singh Ex.CW-1/2 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-4.
4. To rebut the allegations of the complainants, OP No.2 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the evidence and written arguments produced by the OPs.
6. The allegation of demand of Rs.15,000/- for removal of defects when the freezer was under warranty is to be determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has raised the issue of demand of Rs.15,000/- for removal of defects by the OPs in his letter dated 18.02.2014 duly sent by registered post to the OPs vide Ex.C-3 and C-4 and the said letter is duly acknowledged and replied by the OPs vide letter dated 24.02.2014 Ex.OP-1 vide courier receipt Ex.OP-2. Perusal of Ex.OP-1 clearly shows that the allegation of demand of Rs.15,000/- for removal of defects has been denied by the Ops. Rather the OPs raised the issue that the complainant wanted an additional compressor to be added in the freezer which is out of the scope of warranty of freezer though the OPs have admitted that the freezer is still under warranty as the warranty was to expire on 01.05.2014. Further the OPs have provided after sale service to the complainant by deputing their technician as and when required by the complainant. The demand of Rs.15,000/- for removal of defect during the warranty period as alleged by the complainant has not been proved whereas as per the Ops the demand of additional compressor being not covered under the warranty has been sufficiently proved by the OPs on the basis of affidavit of one expert Shri Cecil Akhai, Prop. Of Akhai HVAC Consultants & Engineers, Panchkula. He has given his expert opinion based on the literature Ex.OP-5.
7. None of the parties have produced the terms of warranty governing the transaction between them. Therefore, in the absence of any document on record, the allegation raised by the complainant that the OPs are demanding Rs.15,000/- for removing the defects when the machine is under warranty, we are unable to reach to any conclusion in the absence of any document to show that the warranty was for one year from the date of purchase. The complainant in his letter dated 18.02.2014 Ex.C-3 has stated that the machine was under warranty for two years whereas the OPs has taken a stand in their written reply and other documents that the deep freezer was under warranty for one year. Therefore, the warranty card being a primary document and in the absence of the same being on record, the controversy raised by the complainant remains inconclusive.
8. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 18, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
