Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/203

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bunny Electronics and another - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

07 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         203 of 2018

Date of Institution :     13.12.2018

 Date of Decision :      07.01.2020

Ashok Kumar son of Jagdish Lal resident of Chahal Road, Royal City, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Bunny Electronics situated at back side Jubilee Cinema, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
2. Haier Appliances (India) Pvt Ltd situated at B-I/A-14, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate New Delhi-110044 through its M.D.
3. M.D. Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd Haier Punjab Office 10, Post Office, St. Old Madhopuri, Ludhiana Punjab 141008.              ......Ops

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Harpartap Singh Sandhu, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 Sh Kamal Kaushik on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

cc no.-203 of 2018

                                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the door glass of refrigerator or to refund the cost price of  Rs.62,000/-of refrigerator and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP-1 regarding good quality of product, complainant purchased one refrigerator make Haier HRF 618 GG from OP-1 against bill dated 31.03.2018 for Rs.62,000/-. At the time of purchasing the same, OP-1 gave guarantee for one year against all kinds of risks including defect, breakage etc free of cost from OP-2. It is submitted that on 21.05.2018 right side of glass door of refrigerator cracked suddenly. Complainant approached OP-1 and informed in this regard to them and on advice of OP-1, complainant lodged a complaint with OP-2 on their toll free number on 22.05.2018 and on his complaint, employee of OP-2 visited the house of complainant and checked the cracked glass door. Said person assured to replace the same free of cost after approval from Company, but thereafter, he never visited again. Complainant again lodged complaint with OP-2 on 17.07.2018, but he did not get any response therefrom. After that complainant paid several visits to OP-1 with requests to them to replace the door of said refrigerator, but

cc no.-203 of 2018

all in vain. Despite repeated requests OPs, did not do anything needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Due to deficiency in service on behalf of OPs, complainant has to suffer huge harassment and mental agony. Complainant has prayed for directions to Ops to replace the refrigerator or to refund the cost price of said refrigerator with interest alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.12.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                             OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable in present form as answering OP is mere retailer and has sold the product in same condition in which it received the same from Manufacture OP-2. In case of any defect arising in said product, answering OP is not liable for any repair or replacement thereof as responsibility for any kind of repair work or for replacement lies with the manufacturing company and not with the seller. Toll free number was given to complainant and it is only the company who can remove the defect from it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and all the allegations regarding relief sought too are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

cc no.-203 of 2018

5                                             OP-2 filed written statement wherein they have taken preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is against the law and facts and complainant has not reached the Forum with clean hands. No cause of action arises against answering OP and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complainant has not placed on record any report of independent technician or engineer to support his claim which is primary requirement as per judicial pronouncements of National Commission and Supreme Court of India. Moreover, complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence which is not permissible in the summary proceedings of this Forum. However, on merits, OP-2 brought before the Forum that complainant did not get installed the refrigerator in question from their expert, rather got the installed from some private person. Thus, information and instructions regarding dos and don’s in respect of product in question could not be given to complainant and therefore, warranty given is not valid, if the product has been installed, serviced, repaired, opened or tampered by any unauthorized person. Moreover, complainant never approached them for installation of said product, rather he made first complaint to answering OP on 13.04.2018 for seeking demo of product and not for installation of same. Further averred that after 4 months of date of purchase on 6.07.2018, complainant got registered his complaint with regarding cracking of glass door of said product and on his complaint, answering OP immediately

cc no.-203 of 2018

deputed service technician, who after inspection of said product reported that glass door of said refrigerator broke due to  mishandling  and as per clause no.18 (c) of warranty card, warranty is not valid, if defects are caused by accidents, alteration, misuse, neglect, substitution of original components with spurious, non genuine components attacked by house hold pets, rodents, fire, flood, earthquake, lightning and other act of God or due to natural calamities. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                               Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 9 and then, closed the evidence.

7                             Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Pawan Kumar Ex OP-1/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Representative of OP-2 and Op-3  tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex OP-2,3/1 and document Ex OP-2, 3/2 and then, also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3.

8                             We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                           After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is

cc no.-203 of 2018

that he purchased a refrigerator having one year guarantee worth Rs.62,000/- against proper bill but after about two months of purchase, right side of glass door of refrigerator cracked. He gave due intimation regarding same to OP-1 and on asking of OP-1, he also lodged complaint in this regard with OP-2. Employee of OP-2 visited the house of complainant and after checking the cracked glass door, he assured to replace the same free of cost after obtaining approval from Company, but thereafter, he never visited again. Complainant again lodged complaint with OP-2, but OPs did not do anything needful. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, till now, OPs have not replaced his refrigerator, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for replacing the said refrigerator or for seeking direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.62,000/-i.e cost price of said refrigerator alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses incurred by him. In reply, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and baseless and stressed mainly on the point that defect if any have arisen in said product, that can be removed only by manufacturing company. He is mere retailer and has only sold the product to complainant in same condition as he has received the same from Company. Even, complainant has not sought any relief from OP-1 and  moreover, liability for removing the defect or for refunding cost price lies only with the manufacturing company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. On the other hand,

cc no.-203 of 2018

OP-2 and 3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and brought before the Forum that company is liable for replacement of product under guarantee and warranty conditions, only if there is any manufacturing defect, but in present complaint complainant has not placed on record any expert report from trained technician or any other documentary proof to reveal manufacturing defect in said refrigerator. It is observed that glass door of refrigerator is broken due to mishandling of product on the part of complainant or his family members. It is common practise that glass articles are handled with much caution and care as little negligence in holding these things carelessly can cause harm to glass. Glass articles need extra care and even little mishandling and short term negligence can damage the glass. Onus to provide proper care to the product till the delivery of product from the showroom to the house of customer is on retailer and after the delivery of product at the place of customer, it becomes the liability of customer complainant to keep the same intact.  To handle the expensive, delicate articles consisting of glass is the prime responsibility of owner after receipt of delivery from shopkeeper. In present case, issue of cracked glass door has arisen after four months of purchases and it seems due to mishandling of product by the complainant and allegation of complaint for deficiency in service does not seem appropriate.

10                                            From above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of

cc no.-203 of 2018

OPs and hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed against OPs. However, in peculiar circumstances of the complaint case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 07.01.2020             

 

 (Param Pal Kaur)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                              Member                             President