Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/756/2022

PARVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ASHOKA ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	756 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	10.10.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	03.07.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Parveen Kumar s/o Sh.Balbir Singh, resident of House No.156/1, Khudda Jassu, U.T., Chandigarh PIN Code 160012

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  M/s Ashoka Enterprises, Shop No.4-5, Naya Gaon, District Mohali, Punjab

2]  M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurugram 122002 (Haryana)

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.SURJEET KAUR     PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Complainant in person

              OP No.1 exparte

   Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. proxy for Sh.Alok Bhatara,     

   Counsel of OP No.2

 

PER B.M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the Complainant, a Teacher by profession, purchased one Whirlpool Refrigerator Model NEO IF 258 ELT Steel Regalia (20608) from the OP No.1 Dealer, manufactured by the OP No.2, on 10.5.2017 for an amount of Rs.23,000/- carrying warranty of 10 years (Ann.C-1). It is stated that the said Refrigerator worked properly for initial years and suddenly stopped functioning in Jan., 2022, which was reported to the OPs whereupon their representative after checking the refrigerator told that its PCB needs replacement to which the complainant agreed to pay as well.  However, the OPs kept on lingering the matter and ultimately told that the PCB is not available and given offer of new refrigerator of complainant’s choice on 40% discount on company rate.  It is submitted that that though the replacement of PCB would not cost the complainant more than Rs.2500/- but since that part was not available with OPs, so having no option, the complainant agreed to the said offer of OPs intimated them to supply him refrigerator of his choice i.e. Model 20859 (Double Door 245 Lts.) Sapphire Mangolia. It is submitted that the OPs after calculating the discount on refrigerator of the complainant, asked him to pay his share of Rs.9000/-, which he paid online (Ann.C-2).  But to the shock & surprise of the complainant, the OPs sent a different model of refrigerator which differs from the choice of complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant brought this matter to the notice of OPs several times by sending emails whereupon the Officials of OPs though agreed to resolve his grievance, but did nothing (Ann.C-3 colly.)   Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

  

2]       The OP NO.1 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 15.2.2023.

         The OP No.2 has filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the total warranty of refrigerator is 1 year comprehensive and further 9 years for compressor only.  It is stated that the complainant was asked to pay the cost of PCB along with cost of labour to which he showed reluctance and then approached answering OP that instead of changing PCB module, he wanted to change the refrigerator under depreciation policy.  It is submitted that the complainant was told that 60% of invoice amount will be deducted along with Rs.1000/- as transport charges, so total depreciation cost was Rs.14,800/- of total invoice amount of Rs.23,000/- and the complainant, after agreeing to the offer, paid Rs.9000/- for the new refrigerator.  It is also submitted that the complainant himself showed interest to replace the refrigerator under depreciation policy.  It is pleaded that the complainant has been supplied the model of the refrigerator as selected by him. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

5]       It is an admitted case of the parties that the old refrigerator of the complainant, having PCB issue, was replaced by the OPs with new refrigerator under depreciation policy on receipt of the complainant’s share of Rs.9000/- apart from his old refrigerator. 

 

6]       The sole grouse of the complainant is that the OPs have failed to supply him the refrigerator as selected by him while agreeing to their depreciation policy and they instead supplied a different model of refrigerator, whereas the stand of the OP NO.2 is that the complainant was delivered the model of refrigerator as selected by him.

 

7]       The record reveals that the complainant also highlighted this issue of non supply of selected refrigerator with the OPs by sending emails (Ann.C-3 colly) mentioning the selected model of the refrigerator, but the same were neither replied nor the said issue was settled by the OPs. 

 

8]       We are of the opinion, the onus lies on the OPs, who alleged to have supplied the refrigerator as selected by the complainant, to bring on record such documents to prove that the complainant had selected such & such model of the refrigerator and the same has been supplied. However, the OP Company, which works in a professional manner while dealing with consumer or companies in documented forms, did not bring on record any such documents to establish their stand that they supplied the refrigerator as selected by the complainant, which draws an adverse inference against them and proves the plea of the complainant that he has not been supplied the refrigerator as selected by him.  More so, the OP NO.1 who undisputedly delivered the refrigerator to the complainant, on the instruction of OP No.2, preferred not to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint, despite being duly served, which raised a reasonable presumption that it too has failed to render due service to the complainant. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is clearly made out, which certainly has caused harassment, mental agony and loss to the complainant. 

9]       In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony and harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.7000/- apart from the above relief.    

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to the record room.

Announced

3^rd July, 2023                                                                         

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER