Haryana

Jind

150/2014

Raj Kishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Anand Elect. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vinod Bansal

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 150 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 17.11.2014
   Date of final order: 08.06.2016

Raj Kishan  son of Jatti Ram resident of Khazoor Wali gali, Sharma Nagar, Jind, District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Anand  Electronic SCF No.1 &2 nearHDFC Bank,  rani talab, Jind through its proprietor.
M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Whirlpool House, plot No.40 sector44, Gurgaon-122002 through its Authorized person.
Kailash Pati Traders, Chakkar road, Jind Authorized service Centre of Whirlpool India Limited through its authorized person.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Dalbir Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          Opposite parties No.2 &3 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Whirlpool Refrigerator  Model No. Whirlpool DC Model 260 GSF 13932 SR for a sum of Rs.17,800/- vide bill dated 24.5.2013 from opposite party No.1 having warranty of one year, relay thermostat, gas and compressor for five years .  At the time of purchase, the opposite party No.1 had assured that the Whirlpool 
                Raj Kishan Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….2…
company is an International Company and is having good reputation and known for their World Class products. Since the date of  purchase, the refrigerator started giving problem and it was not working properly and there was not proper formation of Ice. The milk curd, wet flour and other eatables got spoiled. The door of the refrigerator are also not working properly. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 regarding defects of refrigerator then the mechanic of opposite party No.2 and 3 attended the complaint and after some adjustment/repairing work, assurance was given that the refrigerator would be working properly. But after some time the same problem started again. The refrigerator of the complainant was again checked thoroughly but the same was found defective. The Engineer of the opposite parties stated that there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and some parts are required to be replaced and it will take time and he would report to the company. The complainant visited the shop of opposite parties No.1 and 3 several times for removing the defects of the refrigerator but the opposite parties No.1 and 3 have not removed the defects of the refrigerator of the complainant.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the refrigerator with new one of any other model of the same range or to pay the price of refrigerator, a sum of  Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses  to the complainant. 

Raj Kishan Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….3…
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 has appeared and filed the   written statement stating  in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint;  the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is contended that the answering opposite party has never assured to the complainant that the refrigerator shall be replaced rather it was to be repaired or the defective part was to be replaced.  The answering opposite party is not responsible for removing the defect of refrigerator and authorized service centre is responsible for removing the defect of the refrigerator in question. The answering opposite party is responsible if the goods sold to the complainant is not the same for which cash-memo has been issued to him. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering   opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.
3.    Notice issued to opposite parties No.2&3 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No. 2&3. Hence, opposite party No.2 &3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 19.12.2014.
4.     In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of  cash memo Ex. C-2 and affidavit of Sh.  Naveen expert mechanic   Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, 

                Raj Kishan Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….4…
the opposite party No.1 has  produced the affidavit of Sh. Anand Jain Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. 
5.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and  also perused the record placed on file. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased one refrigerator from opposite party No.1 and opposite parties have given one year warranty of Relay Thermostat and gas and four years warranty of compressor. From the very beginning the refrigerator in question is giving problem of cooling and the doors of the refrigerator also not working properly. Several complaints were made with the opposite party No.2 and 3 but the opposite party No.2 has failed to remove the defects to the refrigerator in question. In support of his complaint, the complainant has also filed his affidavit as well as affidavit Ex. C-3 of Sh. Naveen, Proprietor and Mechanic of bright electronic and refrigeration works, Jind stating therein that he has checked the refrigerator in question and refrigerator is having some manufacturing defect and is not repairable. In case of repair it will cost minimum Rs.10,000/- and even then there are very less chances of good performance of this refrigerator. The mechanic further alleged that repair is not advisable because the refrigerator has  unbalanced doors and gaskit. On the other hand, the manufacture as well as service centre did not bother to appear. In these circumstances and adverse inference  is drawn against the opposite parties they have not removed the defects in the refrigerator and refrigerator has inherent defect which could not be removed.  However, at the time of making 
                Raj Kishan Vs M/S Anand Elet.
                        ….5…
the complaint, the refrigerator in question having warranty of one year of Relay, Thermostate and gas and five year warr. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs directing the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with new one of the same model and capacity within 30 days after receiving the certified copy of order. Cost is assessed as Rs.2200/- to the complainant, failing which the complainant is liberty to take the legal action against the opposite parties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 8.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

Raj Kishan Vs. M/S Anand Elect..
                
Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh.Dalbir Sharma Adv. for Opposite Party No1    
              Opposite party No.2&3 already ex-parte. 

             Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                             President,
Member        Member                                  DCDRF, Jind
                                     8.6.2016