Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/173/2020

Bhawana W/o Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chandigarh Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.173 of 2020

Date of instt.:27.05.2020

                                                                       Date of Decision:10.03.2021

 

Bhawna wife of Sh.Balbir Singh resident of 438/5A, Balmiki Basti, near Maszid Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      …….Complainant.                                                 Versus

 

1. M/s Chandigarh  Enterprises, Opp. Sector 7, near 5 & 7 Dividing Cut, Main Road, Kurukshetra (M.No. 94164-67710) through its Proprietor.

 

2.Samsung Service Centre, plot No.3, Ground floor, Raj Market, Opp.Harsh Theatre, Kurukshetra through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager.

 

3. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. 7^th 8^th Floor IFCL Tower 61 Nehru Palace, New Delhi 110019 through its Manager/M.D.

         

….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                       

 

Present:      Sh.Kamal Pandit, Advocate for the complainant.   

OP No.1 ex parte.

OP No.2 ex parte.

Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for OP No.3.

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Bhawna against M/S Chandigarh Enterprises etc.-the opposite parties.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator make Samsung Model No. RR26N3732BS/HIL-20 of Rs.21,700/- from OP No.1 through Bajaj Finance Card vide mobile No. 70156-13238 on 11.5.2019 with five years warranty and the OP No.1 issued a bill No.634 dated 11.5.2019.  At the time of purchase of the said product, OPs had assured about the good quality of the product.  The OPs gave five years warranty for all parts and further warranty of four years for compressor was provided.  It is averred that the said refrigerator is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and it was not giving proper cooling and the house hold items kept in the refrigerator used to become waste on the same day. The complainant approached the OP No.1 in this regard. Mechanic of OP No.1 visited the house of complainant and inspected the refrigerator and the mechanic of OP No.1 had got changed the compress of the refrigerator and assured the complainant that fridge is now OK and further no problem would occur in the fridge fbut after some days same problem developed in the fridge and the complainant approached the OP No.1 in that regard and also contacted the OP No.2 through their toll free number 1800407267864 but the OPs failed to rectify the defect of the fridge. Then on 21.3.2020, the complainant  made a complaint to the OP no.2 but they could not come due to lockdown and lastly on 22.5.2020 the complainant made a complaint to OP No.2. After 2/3 days the officials of OP No.2 approached the house of the complainant and  repaired the fridge of the complainant and the complainant requested them to replace the same as the fridge is defective piece and  started giving problem. The complainant yesterday personally approached the  OPs and requested them to replace the fridge but nothing has been done which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the defective fridge of the complainant with a new one and has sought compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and litigation expenses.

 

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the dealer purchased the product from the company in packed condition and sold the same in the same packed condition. So, there is no fault of the OP No.1 and if there is any kind of defect in the alleged fridge, in that event, the company has given a toll free number for making complaints and it is the local engineer of the company who shall provide the repairing/servicing facilities to the customer of the company. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically and preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and that of non joinder and mis joinder of the parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.                OP No.2 failed to appear and contest the complaint despite due service, therefore, OP No.2   was proceeded against exparte vide order dated  08.09.2019.

 

5.                OP No.3 appeared and filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the said fridge is having no manufacturing defect. It is stated that in fact the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the fridge in question approached the OP No.3 on 18.11.2019(job sheet No.4294864630) and reported no cooling issue. The engineer of the answering OP visited the premises of the complainant and checked the fridge and it was found that the compressor and dryer of the fridge needs replacement and the same were replaced. After that the complainant approached the OP on 21.2.2020 with the same problem vide job sheet No.4299848665 and a gain both the as above said were replaced.  After that the complainant approached the OP on 22.5.2020 vide job sheet No. 4302744949 and reported weak cooling issue.  The service engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant but the complainant refused to get the fridge checked or repaired. The complainant made a lame excuse to come after ten days. After ten days engineer again visited the house of the complainant but the complainant refused to get her fridge checked and started demanding new fridge and has filed the present complaint. Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

6.                The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.

 

7.                OP No.1 in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence.

 

8.                On the other hand, OP No.3 has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 and closed his evidence.

 

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

 

10.              The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant refrigerator make Samsung Model No. RR26N3732BS/HIL-20 of Rs.21,700/- from OP No. no.1 on 11.5.2019 with five years warranty and the OP No.1 issued a bill No.634 dated 11.5.2019.    The OPs gave five years warranty for all parts and further warranty of four years for compressor was provided.  It is argued  that the said refrigerator is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and it was not giving proper cooling and the house hold items kept in the refrigerator used to become waste on the same day.  It is further argued that the  complainant approached the OP No.1 in this regard. Mechanic of OP No.1 visited the house of complainant and inspected the refrigerator and the mechanic of OP No.1 had got changed the compress of the refrigerator and assured the complainant that fridge is now OK and further no problem would occur in the fridge but after some days same problem developed in the fridge and the complainant approached the OP No.1 in that regard and also contacted the OP No.2 through their toll free number 1800407267864 but the OPs failed to rectify the defect of the fridge. Then on 21.3.2020, the complainant  made a complaint to the OP no.2 but they could not come due to lockdown and lastly on 22.5.2020 the complainant made a complaint to OP No.2. After 2/3 days the officials of OP No.2 approached the house of the complainant and  repaired the fridge of the complainant and the complainant requested them to replace the same as the fridge is defective piece and  started giving problem. The complainant yesterday personally approached the  OPs and requested them to replace the fridge but nothing has been done which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the  contentions made in the written statement argued that said fridge is having no manufacturing defect. It is argued  that in fact the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the fridge in question approached the OP No.3 on 18.11.2019(job sheet No.4294864630) and reported no cooling issue. The engineer of the answering OP visited the premises of the complainant and checked the fridge and it was found that the compressor and dryer of the fridge needs replacement and the same were replaced. After that the complainant approached the OP on 21.2.2020 with the same problem vide job sheet No.4299848665 and a gain both the as above said were replaced.  After that the complainant approached the OP on 22.5.2020 vide job sheet No. 4302744949 and reported weak cooling issue.  The service engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant but the complainant refused to get the fridge checked or repaired.

 

12.              After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that there is manufacturing defect in the fridge in question. As per admission of the OPs purchase of  fridge and complaints made by the complainant are not in dispute.  As per own admission of the OP no.3, the fridge in question has been repaired two times. Once another complaint as per  the case of the complainant is still pending. The fridge in question was purchased on 11.05.2019 and the  complaint in  hand has been filed within one year of its purchase and even  OP no.3 got the product repaired twice prior to filing of the present complaint.  The contention of the learned counsel for OPs that there is no manufacturing defect in the  fridge in question is devoid of any force because  as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Scooters India  Limited  Vs. Madhabananda Mohenty  if  defect develops in a product or machinery time and again, then it can easily be presumed that there is manufacturing defect  in the product.  From the photograph Ex.R-6  it  appears that door of the fridge in question does not work properly. Therefore, it is held that there is manufacturing defect in the fridge in question and came  could not be removed by the OPs. Therefore, there is grave deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to refund of the cost i.e.  Rs.21,700/- from the OPs together with compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

13.              As a result of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the cost of the fridge in question i.e. Rs.21,700/- to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.  The complainant shall return the old fridge to the OPs. The OPs   are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which the  complainant  will be at liberty  to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.: 10.03.2021.                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)                                                                                                  President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),              (Neelam)         

 Member                                     Member.