| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 160 of 3.8.2015 Decided on: 12.3.2018 Balraj Singh son of Sh.Sukhpal Singh, resident of #1088, Urban Estate, Phase II, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. M/s Garg Electronics, SCO No.7, Walia Enclave, Behind Petrol Pump, Opp. Punjabi University, Patiala, through its proprietor. 2. Voltas Limited, ‘Voltas House’, “A” Block, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chichpokli, Mumbai-400033 through its managing Director. 3. Malhotra Cool Care,(Authorized Service Centre of ‘Voltas’) Triveni Chowk, Patiala through Parvesh Malhotra. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.A.S.Dhindsa,Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.1. Sh.Vinay Sood, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties No.2&3. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA,MEMBER - The complainant purchased one refrigerator, make VOLTAS CFG 405 Deep Freezer vide invoice No.9790 dated 28.2.2015 for a sum of Rs.27000/- from OP no.1. It is averred that on 28.3.2015, the said refrigerator stopped functioning and the complainant approached OP no.1, who further made a complaint to Op no.2. On 1.4.2015, Mr.Parvesh Malhotra, representative of OP no.3, came to the premises of the complainant and took away the fridge for its repair and delivered back the same on 2.4.2015. It is averred that ice-cream and milk products worth Rs.5788/- got melted due to defect in the fridge. After 2.4.2015, the fridge was checked by using it empty and when the same was found to be OK, the complainant purchased ice-cream and other products vide bill No.849 worth Rs.11552/- on 10.4.2015. In the night, the refrigerator stopped functioning and the said item kept in the fridge melted and became useless. On 11.4.2015, the complainant made a complaint to the OP and its mechanic visited the premises of the complainant to repair the fridge but all in vain. It is further averred that on 16.4.2015, the OP took away the fridge of the complainant from his premises with the assurance to replace the same as it was having manufacturing defect. Due to non functioning of the fridge, the complainant was suffering loss in business and as such on 15.4.2015, he purchased another refrigerator vide invoice No.36668 for a sum of rs.30,500/-. OPs failed to replace the refrigerator of the complainant till the filing of this complaint. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and suffered monetary loss also at the hands of the OPs. The problem occurred in the fridge during the warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. OP no.1 in its written version, after admitting the fact that the refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant from it, has altogether denied the fact that the complainant ever approached it regarding any defect in the said product. After denying all the allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- Whereas OP nos.2&3 in their written version have submitted that n either the complainant nor OP no.1 ever lodged any complaint with OPs No.2&3. Mr. Parvesh Malhotra, the representative of OP no.3 never visited the premises of the complainant on 1.4.2015 and when Mr. Parvesh Malhotra had not visited the premises of the complainant on 1.4.2015, there is no question of taking away the fridge and making the delivery on 2.4.2015. It is further submitted that the true facts of the case are that on receipt of the legal notice dated 10.7.2015, OP no.2 had deputed OP no.3 to look into the complaint. Therefore, Mr.Kulbinder Singh, representative of OP no.3 visited the premises of the complainant on 20.7.2015 and at that time the fridge was not there and the complainant told the representative that he had handed over the fridge to OP no.1. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
- The ld.counsel for OP no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Goyal, Prop. OP no.1 and closed the evidence of OP no.1.
The Ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Parvesh Malhotra, Incharge Malhotra Cool Care alongwith document Exs.OP1 and closed evidence of OPs No.2&3. - We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for OP no.1 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one Deep
Freezer from Op no.1 on 28.2.2015 for a sum of Rs.27000/-.Ex.C2 is the warranty card which shows that the said deep freezer was under warranty for one year. Exs.C3 and C4, are the bills showing the purchase of ice-cream and other products purchased by the complainant for keeping them in the deep freezer. Ex.C5 is the invoice dated 15.4.2015 showing the purchase of a new deep freezer by the complainant. It is the submission of the complainant that on 16.4.2015, mechanic of the OP came but he could not rectify the defect and so he took away the fridge of the complainant from his premises with the assurance to replace the same. The only plea taken by OPs No.2&3 is that when their representative visited the premises of the complainant on 20.7.2015, the fridge in question was not there and the complainant had told its representative that he had returned the fridge to OP no.1. In support of this plea, they have placed on record Ex.OP1 i.e. the job sheet dated 20.7.2015. On perusal of the same, we found that Ex.OP1 i.e. the job sheet dated 20.7.2015, on which the OPs No.2&3 have placed their whole reliance, is neither signed by the client nor by the authorized service dealer. Hence this document cannot be relied upon. - In the present case, the problem occurred in the Deep freezer during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and the complainant was forced to purchase a new fridge.Thus the OP no.2 being the manufacturer and OP no.3 being the service centre, are liable to refund the price of the fridge.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant against OPs No.2&3 only. OP no.1 being merely a seller, no liability can be imposed on it. Hence OPs No.2&3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.27000/- i.e. the price of the Deep Freezer to the complainant alongwith an amount of Rs.6000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and also a sum of Rs.4000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by OPs No.2&3 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:12.3.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
