Complainant Sunita Rani has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to replace the fridge or to return amount of Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Opposite party be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental pain and agony, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased a Refrigerator of Godrej company from opposite party on 29.6.2018 for Rs.21,000/-. Since the purchase of Fridge, its door does not closed properly and in this regard she has made complaint to the opposite party. The service executive of the opposite party visited her house and told her that the fridge is under warranty period and door of the fridge can be replaced but she refused to change the door and asked to replace the fridge as it was not working properly from day one as it is a manufacturing defect and the opposite party sold a defective piece to her which is a unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. She requested to the opposite party to replace the fridge so many times but they refused to do so. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party but it did not come to the Forum. On 10.12.2018, case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party. Hence, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. On 28.1.2019 Sh.Bharat Aggarwal, Adv. had appeared on behalf of opposite party and filed vakalatnama alongwith application for allowing the applicant to join the proceedings which was allowed vide order dated 25.2.2019.
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed her own affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of bill dated 29.6.2018 for Rs.21,000/- Ex.C-2.
5. On going through the file minutely and after considering the documents produced on the file alongwith complaint, we are of the opinion that complainant purchased the refrigerator of Godrej company from OP on 29.6.2018 for an amount of Rs.21,000/- is proved vide Ex.C-2 on the file. Otherwise complainant has not produced any other document regarding defect or any problem in the refrigerator. But she has reiterated all these allegation in Ex.C-1 produced as affidavit.
6. On the other hand, the deficiency or unfair trade practice of the OP is made clear and authenticated when first of all Ops were declared exparte as they failed to appear in the Forum on the due date for contesting the complaint even after service of Notice and secondly when they joined proceedings but again failed to submit written arguments even after getting much opportunities and finally again were declared exparte as the OP failed to appear on the dates, in the Forum.
7. Keeping in view the above circumstances, and considering the version of complainant, we have no other option but to believe the version as produced by complainant as OP has failed to rebut or challenge invoice document Ex.C-2 proves that the refrigerator was purchased on 29.6.2018 and obviously it was within warranty. In view of above discussion, we partly accept the complaint of complainant and ORDER the OP to replace the defective door by a new one of the same model and make within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and if the same is not available then to refund her entire price i.e. Rs.21,000/- of the refrigerator. The OP is also burdened with a cost of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment. Entire compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order otherwise the full amount of refrigerator i.e. Rs.21,000/- + Rs.3,000/- = Rs.24,000/- will fetch interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision of the complaint till its realization.
8. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.
Announced: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
June 25, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
