O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President
The complainant Shri Mangat Ram on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to replace Refrigerator 230 liters frost -3 Videocon serial No. 980709260 110003217 Model No. VAP 233SG-RFB with new one of the same model and make and to refund Rupees 1230/- and to pay a compensation of Rupees 20,000/- on the grounds that he purchased the said Refrigerator on 13-09-2011 vide invoice No. 950 for Rupees 14,300/- from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.3 with one year warranty and four years free service. But the said Refrigerator stopped functioning and became defective after five days only of its purchase, upon which the complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party No.1 who in turn called the Engineer of opposite party No.2 for its checking and repair. The engineer of the opposite party No.2 checked and repaired the refrigerator, but it again stopped functioning and the same was again repaired by the opposite parties No.1 and 2. After the said repair the defect could not be removed, upon which the opposite party No.1 again carried out the repair on charging Rupees 1230/- from the complainant under protest within warranty period. Thereafter 24-25 days the refrigerator again stopped functioning and cooling and the said defects could not be removed by the opposite parties and the opposite parties also failed to replace the same which amounts to deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered harassment, monetary loss and mental tension and humiliation.
2. The notice of the complaint was duly served upon the opposite parties but they did not appear hence have been proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant led exparte evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the complaint.
5. The averments made in the complaint are duly supported and corroborated by the deposition of the complainant made in his affidavit Annexure C-1. The deposition of the complainant has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. On the strength of cash memo Annexure R-2 it stands proved that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question from the opposite party No.1 on 13-09-2011 in sum of Rupees 14,500/- with one year warranty and four year service warranty. But the refrigerator in question became defective and stopped functioning after a period of only five days. The complaint was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 informed the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 deputed its Engineer for removing the defect in the Refrigerator. The opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of the refrigerator whereas the opposite party No.1 is its dealer and opposite party No.2 is its authorised service station. The refrigerator was purchased by the complainant on 13-09-2011 with four years service warranty, but the opposite party No.2 received Rupees 1230/- vide cash receipt Annexure C-3 for its repair and failed to remove the defect. It stands proved that the opposite party No.2 tried to repair the refrigerator in question several times, but failed to repair and make the same functional. The deposition of the complainant has gone unchallenged, hence this Forum has no reason to disbelieve the same. The complainant has also produced in evidence the affidavit of Shri Jatinder Kumar Annexure C-4. He has deposed that he has undergone the training of mechanical refrigeration and air conditioner from I.T.I. recognized by Punjab Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training. The complainant has produced in evidence the certificate of said training of Jatinder Kumar Annexure C-5. Jatinder Kumar has produced in evidence his report attached with certificate Annexure C-5, vide which he has reported that the refrigerator in question has manufacturing defect. The deposition made by him has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. The opposite party did not opt to resist the claim of the complainant which meant that it has nothing to state in opposition of the claim of the complainant.
6. In view of the evidence discussed and evidence recorded above, it stands established that the Engineer of the opposite party No.2 being authorised service station of opposite party No.3 failed to repair and remove the defencts in the refrigerator, and the opposite parties also failed to replace the same with new one in spite of the requests made by the complainant, hence this Forum is bound to conclude that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered monetary loss, harassment, humiliation and mental tension.
RELIEF:
In view the findings recorded above, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer of the refrigerator in question is directed to replace the same with new one of the same make and quality free from any defect with fresh warranty within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which to refund Rupees 14,300/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 31-08-2013 till the said amount is paid or realised. The opposite party No.3 is also directed to pay cost of the complaint which we assess at Rupees 5,000/-. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. The file be consigned to the records after its needful.
Announced and signed in open Forum
on this the 05th day of March, 2015.
