Punjab

Sangrur

CC/408/2017

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bedi Trading Group - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gagandeep Bhagria

22 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  408

                                                Instituted on:    11.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       22.01.2018

 

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Mithu Ram, resident of Ward No.1, Malka Street, Lehragaga, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Bedi Trading Group, Khai Road, Lehragaga through its owner.

2.             Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its M.D.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Gagangdeep Bhagria, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member   

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Rakesh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one refrigerator double door make Samsung of 340 Litres from Op number 1 for Rs.36,000/- vide bill number 354 dated 16.8.2016.  Further case of the complainant is that at the time of selling the refrigerator the OP number 1 gave one year warranty of the same.  Further case of the complainant is that the refrigerator in question was installed by the service centre of OP number 2.  The grievance of the complainant is that the refrigerator in question is suffering from the cooling problem from the very date of its purchase.  The complainant made so many complaints at customer care number on 3.4.2017, 25.5.2017, 7.6.2017 and 4.7.2017, but of no effect.  The complainant has thus alleged that the refrigerator in question is suffering from the manufacturing defects which is beyond repairs and has sought its replacement. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the refrigerator in question or in the alternative to refund the purchase price of the refrigerator in question along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by Op number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question from OP number 1.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.               In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary party, that the complainant never approached the OP for any problem in the refrigerator, that the performance of the product depends upon the physical handling of the product and that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It has been denied that the complainant ever approached the service centre of the OPs.

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of SMS and Ex.C-4 affidavit along with Annexure A and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.Ops/1 affidavit along with Annexure R-1, Ex.OPs/2 affidavit, Ex.OPs/3 copy of job sheet, Ex.OPs/4 to Ex.Ops/7 copy of photographs, Ex.OPs/8 expert report and closed evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the refrigerator in question for Rs.36,000/- by the complainant, which clearly reveals that the refrigerator in question developed defects of cooling during the warranty period. Ex.C-3 is the copies of the messages showing that the refrigerator in question developed defects during the warranty period and he lodged the complaint with the OPs.  
Annexure-A is the expert report given by Shri Gobind Singh, who has mentioned in his report that the refrigerator in question is suffering from manufacturing problem and due to that there is cooling problem in the refrigerator.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the refrigerator in question is working properly and there is no cooling problem and to support such a contention, he has drawn our attention towards the customer service record card Ex.OPs/3 and further he has drawn our attention towards the report submitted by one Mohd. Naeem Chouhan dated 3.11.2017, wherein he has mentioned that during checking he found the refrigerator in question is working properly and there is no manufacturing defect therein.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as the reports have been prepared by the own employees of the OPs and obviously the reports will be submitted in favour of the OPs, as such, these reports have no value in the eye of law as these are not independent reports. Now, the fact remains that the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 16.8.2016 and it developed defects of cooling during the warranty period as it is evident that the complainant filed the present complaint on 11.8.2017 within the warranty period.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs even during the present proceedings did not chose to offer the repair of the refrigerator.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the refrigerator in question is suffering from cooling problem, which deserves to be removed.

 

7.               Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to repair the refrigerator in question and make it fully functional. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.               This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 22, 2018.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member