| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/271 of 17.11.2015 Decided on: 7.9.2016 Narinder Kumar S/o Prabhu Dayal R/o B-38/51, Top Khana More Jejian Street, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - M/s Amar Traders, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Partner/Prop.
- M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd., Pirojshanagar , Vikhroli, Mumbai through its M.D./Chairman.
…………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Smt.Neena Sandhu, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY Sh. Arun Bansal , Advocate , counsel for the complainant Sh. Dhiraj Puri,Advocate, counsel for Opposite party No.2 ORDER NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT - Sh. Narinder Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.ps) praying for the following reliefs:
- To pay Rs.22,300/-,the price of the refrigerator;
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, on account of mental agony and harassment, caused to him
- In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 4.3.2014, he purchased a Godrej Refrigerator model RF GDR FF RTEON-260 P4.2 from the Ops for an amount of Rs.22,300/- having good quality, more energy saving and giving best performance of cooling and freezing even in low electricity. But from the date of purchase i.e. 4.3.2014, the refrigerator is not working properly, regarding which he made a number of complaints to the Ops i.e. on 8.4.2014, 9.7.2014, 19.5.2015 and 25.5.2015. On the first complaint made on 8.4.2014, the official of the Ops visited his premises and found some manufacturing defects in the refrigerator. Again he made complaint on 9.7.2014 for the non working of the refrigerator. Every time the official gave assurance to him for the replacement of the defective product but to no effect. He also got served a legal notice dated 8.9.2015 upon the Ops regarding the defective refrigerator. The Ops failed to pay any heed to the legal notice. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops for which he from harassment and mental agony. Hence this complaint
- Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only who on put to notice, appeared through its counsel Sh.Dhiraj Puri, Advocate and filed the written version. It is denied that from the very first day of purchase of the refrigerator, it is not working properly and the complainant has made several complaints for its non working and removal of defects. The complainant has not produced any job sheet. It is admitted that the complainant made several complaints through customer care and all the times the representative from the service centre approached the complainant to rectify the defect and found the refrigerator working properly. It is alleged that on 25.5.2015, against the complaint No.952333, a senior technician visited the complainant to rectify the defect but the complainant refused to get the defect rectified from him and demanded new refrigerator. The technician told the complainant that the company gives warranty only,, against any defect and the company is ready to remove the defect on FOC basis (free of cost).It is stated that there is no defect in the compressor and no assurance has ever been given to the complainant by the representative of the Op to replace the defective product. The receipt of two legal notices dated 27.5.2015 and 8.9.2015 is admitted by the Op but it is denied if, the Op has not tried to pay any heed to the legal notice. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Op. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In order to prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of retail invoice dated 4.3.2014, Ex.C2 copy of warranty, Ex.C3 copy of legal notice dated 8.9.2015, Exs.C4 and C5 postal receipts and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, on behalf of Op No.2, its learned counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Charan Kamal, Technical Manager, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. Ex.OP1 copy of complaints history, Ex.OP2 copy of legal notice dated 27.5.2015 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case, carefully
- The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the refrigerator of the complainant is not working properly from the first day of its purchase . On filing of complaints regarding non working of refrigerator by the complainant , the OP did the needful, however, inspite of that the said refrigerator is not working properly . On 8.4.2014, the official of the Op, who visited to inspect the said refrigerator, found defects in the compressor of the refrigerator in question and assured the complainant to replace the same with the new one. However, nothing was done by the Ops.
- On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Op No.2 vehemently argued that whenever, the complainant made complaint through customer care, regarding non working of the refrigerator, the same was duly attended to by the technician of its authorized service centre situated at Patiala. Every time the technician/engineer found that the refrigerator was working properly and there was no defect. While saying so, he placed reliance on the document i.e complaints history, copy Ex.OP1. He argued that, presently, if there is any defect in the refrigerator, Op No.2 is still ready to remove the same, on FOC basis ( Free of cost). He further argued that there is no manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator and the complainant has not placed on record any document in the shape of report of any expert to prove that the refrigerator in question sufferes from any manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs.
- Admittedly, vide invoice dated 4.3.2014, copy Ex.C1, the complainant purchased the refrigerator in question from Op No.1 for an amount of Rs.22,300/- having warranty of 10 years on the compressor only. The complainant has not placed on record any document regarding lodging of complaints with the Ops in respect of non working of the refrigerator. The Op No.2 has placed on record the complaints history, as Ex.OP1, which is neither signed nor any stamp is affixed on it. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that complainant lodged the complaints through customer care centre regarding non cooling/ compressor problem, of the refrigerator . In this document, it is stated that every time the refrigerator was checked and was found working OK, with proper Ice formation & cooling. It may be stated that the complainant has not placed on record any document to substantiate this fact that t there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. Thus, in the absence thereof, it can be held that the refrigerator in question suffers from any manufacturing defect and the prayer made for replacement of the refrigerator, cannot be accepted. From the copy of warranty, Ex.C2, it is evident that the manufacturer has given a warranty of 10 years on the compressor and the OP no.2 is still ready to rectify the defect(s) in the refrigerator/compressor free of cost, therefore, we dispose of the complaint with a direction to the OP No.2 to depute its engineer to check the refrigerator/compressor in question and if the said engineer finds any defect(s) in it, then the OP No.2 shall direct the said engineer to set the refrigerator/compressor in question right, immediately either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s) free of cost. The copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
NEENA SANDHU President NEELAM GUPTA Member Dated: 7.9.2016 | |
