DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.:1261 of 2009 Date of Inst: 02.09.2009 Date of Decision:03.06.2010 Smt.Harpreet Kaur resident of House No.1420, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S1. M/s Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1112, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.2. Ashish Jindal, Branch Manager, Whirlpool, 910, Top Floor, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.D.S.Marwaha, Advocate for complainant Ms.Geeta Gulati, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt.Harpreet Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to replace the fridge or in the alternative to refund the price of the fridge along with interest and cost. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a fridge from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.30,700/- vide invoice dated 01.11.2007. According to the complainant, the items stored in the refrigerator started freezing within 6 days of its installation. The complainant approached OP-2 for removal of the defects, who changed the thermostat. Thereafter, the items stored placed on the upper 2 shelves of the fridge started freezing. OP-2 was again approached who advised to install a stabilizer. So the complainant got the stabilizer installed. According to the complainant, still the fridge was giving the same problems. Despite several requests, OP-2 has failed to rectify the defects. It has been pleaded that the fridge has some manufacturing defect and needs replacement. So the complainant wrote letters dated 26.09.2008 and 22.10.2008 to OPs for replacement of the fridge but to no effect. Thus, the case of the complainant is that neither the OPs have removed the defects of the fridge pointed out to them nor the fridge has been replaced which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs, it has been denied that OPs sold a defective fridge. It has been pleaded that the first complaint was registered on 27.09.08 and the same was attended to by OPs but the complainant refused to get the refrigerator repaired. It has been denied that the complainant was advised to install stabilizer. According to OPs, the defective part is repairable and Ops are still ready to replace the PCB as per warranty terms and conditions but the complainant is not ready for the same. It has been denied that any letter was ever written by the complainant to them. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. 5. The case of the complainant is that the fridge became defective after 7 days of its installation. So she approached OP-2 who changed the thermostat. According to the complainant, the articles placed on upper two shelves of the fridge started freezing. She again approached the OP-2 who advised her to install the stabilizer. Accordingly, she got installed the stabilizer but even then the fridge is not functioning properly. Despite her several requests, OPs never cared to rectify the defects. Therefore, she wrote letters to OPs but to no effect. 6. On the other hand, the case of OPs is that for the first time, the complaint was received on 27.09.2008 and the same was attended to by OPs. However, the complainant refused to get the fridge repaired. The version of the OPs to the effect that the first complaint was received on 29.02.2008 cannot be accepted. In the letters placed on record, it is apparent that the complainant had been requesting the OPs earlier also to attend her complaints. The case of the complainant is that her complaints have not been attended to and fridge is still not working properly. The case of the OPs is that PCB requires to be changed and the OPs is willing to replace the same. Learned counsel for OPs has cited the case titled as Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. B.G. Thakur Desai & Anr. reported in I (1993) CPJ 72 NC in which it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission as under : "....If a consumer purchases some machinery and some part of it is found having manufacturing defect and that part can be replaced then it will be very prejudicial to the interest of the manufacturer if he is asked to replace the whole machinery without sufficient cause......" In view of the ratio of the case cited above, it would not be proper to direct the OPs to replace the refrigerator with a new one. But in the present case, OPs have failed to repair/replace the defective parts after writing of the letters dated 26.09.2008 and 22.10.2008 and requests made by the complainant which itself constitutes deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant definitely suffered mental agony and harassment due to mal-functioning of the refrigerator after spending a huge amount of Rs.30,700/- and therefore, he is also entitled for Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to make the refrigerator in working order to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by replacing the PCB or any other part of the refrigerator which requires to be replaced free of cost. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 8. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.30,700/- being the price of the refrigerator and Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.06.2010 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 03.06.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
