Haryana

Karnal

13/2014

Raghubir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jannt - Opp.Party(s)

Amish Goel

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.13 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.:14.01.2014

                                                               Date of decision:29.09.2016

 

Raghubinder Singh son of Shri Raghubir Singh resident of Virk House, Meera Sadbhavana Chowk, G.T. Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. M/S Jannat ,139, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its prop./partner/Director.

2. Hitachi Service Centre, Model Town, near Police Post, Karnal through its Partner/Prop./Director.

3. Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd. Units 802A and 802B, Tower-2, 8^th Floor, Konnectus Building, Bhavbhuti Marg, near Minto Bridge, Cannaught Place, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Amish Goel Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Gaurav Chhabra Advocate for opposite parties.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Hitachi Refrigerator Model RW660END9 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.81,000/-, vide invoice dated 21.06.2011. The said refrigerator was manufactured by opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.2 was authorized service centre of the company.  After sometime, the refrigerator was not working properly as there was some problem in the door. He approached the opposite party no.1, who informed the opposite party no.2, vide complaint no.13070400924. Opposite party no.2 after checking told that the door will be replaced as soon as possible, but after 2-3 months Engineer came to his house and told that the opposite party no.2 was unable to replace the door.  He approached the opposite parties several times for replacement of the door of the refrigerator, but opposite parties did not pay any heed to his requests and prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the legal notice  was served upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached with clean hands; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the on the complaint of complainant, the Service Engineer visited the premises of the complainant to inspect the refrigerator in question, but on inspection it was found that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and the door of the refrigerator was also found o.k. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C5.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Jyoti Prasad Chaturvedi Ex.OP1/A has been tendered.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant had purchased one refrigerator from opposite party no.1 on 21.6.2011. It has been alleged that after sometime some problems arose in the door of the refrigerator, therefore, he approached opposite party no.1, who informed the opposite party no.2 and after checking the refrigerator the opposite party no.2 told that door will be replaced as soon as possible, but the door was not replaced inspite of repeated requests and even serving legal notice upon the opposite parties. On the other hand, the opposite parties in the written statement submitted that the service engineer inspected the refrigerator of the complainant and no defect in the door was found.

7.                The complainant has produced the photographs of the refrigerator indicating that the door was not properly fixed. The complainant by way of his affidavit Ex.CW1/A reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite parties have filed the affidavit of Sohan son of Balbir Ex.OW1/A to rebut the evidence of the complainant. The service engineer who had inspected the refrigerator of the complainant has not come forward to file his affidavit in order to substantiate the allegations of the opposite parties that there was no problem in the door of the refrigerator. No importance can be attached to the affidavit of Sohan, because he had not inspected the refrigerator and as such he has no personal knowledge regarding condition of the door of the refrigerator. Therefore, the evidence of the opposite parties is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the complainant regarding problem in the door of the refrigerator. Under such circumstances, not replacing the door of the refrigerator certainly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                However, at the time of arguments learned counsel for the opposite parties has made statement to replace the door of the refrigerator free of costs, but learned counsel for the complainant has asserted that the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the door of the refrigerator of the complainant free of costs and pay him Rs.500/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 29.9.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member