Haryana

Ambala

CC/234/2011

DIMPLE - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ELECTROLUX INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

P.K GOEL

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                        Complaint case no. : 234 of 2011

                                                                        Date of Institution    : 27.07.2011 

                                                                        Date of decision       : 14.10.2016.

Dimple son of Sh. Chander Pal, Resident of house no. 29-B, Inder Puri, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

1. M/s Electrolux India Ltd. A-8, Vaitalik, Qutab Institutional Area, 2^nd Floor, New Delhi-110067 through its Director.

2.  M/s Prince Electronics through its Proprietor, cross Road no. 10, Ambala Cantt.

3.  M/s Videocon Service Centre being Authorized Official/in-charge/Manager.

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                         

Present:          Sh. P.K. Goel, counsel for the complainant.

                        OP no. 1 and 2 already exparte v.o.d. 27.09.2011.        

                        OP no. 3 given up v/o dt. 31.03.2016.

ORDER:

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator model no. EDL 244 EDB 2400L (Luxury) vide Invoice no. 2422/2522 dt. 21.05.2010 amounting to Rs. 11500/- from the above named respondents which was having 1 years as comprehensive warranty and additional four years warranty for compressor as stated in Booklet of product and very beginning, refrigerator suffered from some manufacturing defect as door problem, cooling problem and defective compressor and complaints were made before respondents but neither the said refrigerator was repaired nor replaced by the respondents. Further submitted that respondents were also refused to return the bill amount, litigation expenses as well as compensation amount as demanded by the complainant despite service of legal notice dated 31.03.2011.  Hence, the present complaint.

2                      Registered notice issued to Ops No. 1 and 2  but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.09.2011 and respondent                   no. 3 was also given up from the array of Ops vide order dated 31.03.2013.

3                      To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1 along with documents as annexure C1 to C7 and close their evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsels for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.  The case of complainant is that the he had purchased a refrigerator mode no. EDL 244 ETB 2400L (luxury) vide invoice no. 2400/2522 dated 21.05.2010 amount to Rs. 11500/- (bill as Annexure no C-1) from  Op No. 2 under warranty as 1 year comprehensive warranty and 4 years warranty for compressor vide Annexure No. C-7 which says that during warranty period, the company repair/replace any defective part or parts of the refrigerator excluding the add on plastic part light blub and glassware, free of change, provided the company is satisfied in its sole discretion that the defect is due to the use of faulty material or fault in workmanship and not due to abnormal and improper use. Further averred that in the present case, it is clearly shows that the refrigerator was not functioning properly at initial stage and after checking by their Engineer of service centre, it was found that there was a problem in manufacture due to which the same could not be rectified. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant made the complaint for rectification the problem i.e. cooling problem and compressor which was within warrant period become defective but OP failed to repair the same nor replace the defective parts even then complainant has also served the legal notice to the opposite party through registered A.D. on 31.03.2011 as Annexure C-6 as copy of the postal receipts as C-2 to C-4 but opposite party has not replied the notice. So, the act & conduct of the Ops is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.  Since, the Ops have remained exparte and the version of complainant has not been rebutted thus we have no other option except to believe the version of complainant. Accordingly, in view of the reasons above, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)        The Ops be directed to either replace the defective refrigerator with a new one of the same model or to refund the total costs of product.

(ii)       Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                        Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :14.10.2016.                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                                          President

 

                                               Sd/-

                            (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                          Member