K.S.Chandel ( District Judge) President.
The complainant Manoj Panwar has preferred this
complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against
the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as the OPs for short),
claiming deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the
OPs. The complainant has pleaded and claimed that he purchased a
Videocon refrigerator 190 liters on 18.12.2007 from the OP No.1
manufactured by OP No.2 and after two months of purchase of the
refrigerator it started giving trouble like excess freezing and thereafter
this fact brought to the knowledge of the dealer and also brought to the
knowledge of the manufacturer, but, the defect was no rectified by the
OPs despite the fact that the mechanic of the company visited many


times and thereafter the OP No.1 has replaced this refrigerator on
6.1.2009. The complainant has further claimed that after receiving
replacement of the refrigerator, but, again it started trouble of over
freezing and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the OPs, but the
OPs failed to remove the trouble and it amounts to deficiency in
servicer as well as unfair trade practice by the OPs. Therefore, the
complainant has sought directions to the OPs for compensation
including replacement or cost of the refrigerator and litigation
expenses. The complaint is duly supported with an affidavit of the
complainant.
2. The OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
5.6.2013 however, OP-1 has filed the reply and has pleaded and
claimed that the manufacturer who is responsible and the OP-1 is only
the dealer who has denied his liability as the articles purchased by the
complainant had been received in the same condition from the
manufacturer and thereby the OP-1 has sought dismissal of the
complaint. The reply of the OP N0.1 is duly accompanied with an
affidavit of the dealer.
3. In rejoinder, the complainant has denied the claim of the dealer
and has reasserted the contents of the complaint. The complainant in
his affidavit has claimed that his refrigerator has been replaced by the
dealer after the defect brought to his notice which could not be
removed by the mechanic, but the same problem happened to be in the
replace refrigerator which could not be rectified by the OPs despite
request by the complainant. The OP No.2 manufacturer has been
proceeded ex-parte and thereby has failed to contest the complaint
however, the dealer has denied his liability.
4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the
record carefully
5. The complainant has pleaded and claimed that he purchased
refrigerator from the dealer i.e. OP-1 for Rs. 8451/- vide bill
Annexure C-1 and when the defect for this refrigerator could not be
removed by the OP the same was replaced by the dealer vide
remarks over bill Annexure C-2. The complainant has further pleaded


that the replaced refrigerator again started the same trouble and when
it was brought to the notice of dealer who has denied any liability and
failed to remove the defect despite request by the complainant. The
OP-1 in its reply has specifically denying any liability to remove the
defects to the refrigerator of the complainant as the OP-1 has
pleaded and claimed that the refrigerator was replaced in the same
condition in which it was received from the manufacturer and
thereby OP-1 pleaded and claimed the liability of OP-2 being
manufacture . The OP-2 has failed to contest the plea of the
complainant as manufacturer i.e. OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte.
Therefore, it has been established and proved on record that the
replaced refrigerator of the complainant again started giving trouble
of excess freezing and despite request of the complainant the OP-1
and OP-2 have failed to remove the defect and, as such, denying the
liability by the OP-1 being dealer amounts to deficiency in service as
well as unfair trade practice. Therefore, the present complaint is
allowed and the liability of the OP-1 and OP-2 is joint and several
and as such, both the OPs are directed to replace the refrigerator of
the complainant or to pay the cost of refrigerator amounting to Rs.
8451/- along with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of filing the
complaint i.e.15.5.2009 till realization and further the OP-1 and
OP-2 are directed to pay compensation as well as litigation
expenses of Rs. 1500/-. The OPs are directed to pay this amount
within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per
rules.
Announced on this 17h day of March ,2015K.S.Chandel ( District Judge) President.
The complainant Manoj Panwar has preferred this
complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against
the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as the OPs for short),
claiming deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the
OPs. The complainant has pleaded and claimed that he purchased a
Videocon refrigerator 190 liters on 18.12.2007 from the OP No.1
manufactured by OP No.2 and after two months of purchase of the
refrigerator it started giving trouble like excess freezing and thereafter
this fact brought to the knowledge of the dealer and also brought to the
knowledge of the manufacturer, but, the defect was no rectified by the
OPs despite the fact that the mechanic of the company visited many


times and thereafter the OP No.1 has replaced this refrigerator on
6.1.2009. The complainant has further claimed that after receiving
replacement of the refrigerator, but, again it started trouble of over
freezing and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the OPs, but the
OPs failed to remove the trouble and it amounts to deficiency in
servicer as well as unfair trade practice by the OPs. Therefore, the
complainant has sought directions to the OPs for compensation
including replacement or cost of the refrigerator and litigation
expenses. The complaint is duly supported with an affidavit of the
complainant.
2. The OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
5.6.2013 however, OP-1 has filed the reply and has pleaded and
claimed that the manufacturer who is responsible and the OP-1 is only
the dealer who has denied his liability as the articles purchased by the
complainant had been received in the same condition from the
manufacturer and thereby the OP-1 has sought dismissal of the
complaint. The reply of the OP N0.1 is duly accompanied with an
affidavit of the dealer.
3. In rejoinder, the complainant has denied the claim of the dealer
and has reasserted the contents of the complaint. The complainant in
his affidavit has claimed that his refrigerator has been replaced by the
dealer after the defect brought to his notice which could not be
removed by the mechanic, but the same problem happened to be in the
replace refrigerator which could not be rectified by the OPs despite
request by the complainant. The OP No.2 manufacturer has been
proceeded ex-parte and thereby has failed to contest the complaint
however, the dealer has denied his liability.
4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the
record carefully
5. The complainant has pleaded and claimed that he purchased
refrigerator from the dealer i.e. OP-1 for Rs. 8451/- vide bill
Annexure C-1 and when the defect for this refrigerator could not be
removed by the OP the same was replaced by the dealer vide
remarks over bill Annexure C-2. The complainant has further pleaded


that the replaced refrigerator again started the same trouble and when
it was brought to the notice of dealer who has denied any liability and
failed to remove the defect despite request by the complainant. The
OP-1 in its reply has specifically denying any liability to remove the
defects to the refrigerator of the complainant as the OP-1 has
pleaded and claimed that the refrigerator was replaced in the same
condition in which it was received from the manufacturer and
thereby OP-1 pleaded and claimed the liability of OP-2 being
manufacture . The OP-2 has failed to contest the plea of the
complainant as manufacturer i.e. OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte.
Therefore, it has been established and proved on record that the
replaced refrigerator of the complainant again started giving trouble
of excess freezing and despite request of the complainant the OP-1
and OP-2 have failed to remove the defect and, as such, denying the
liability by the OP-1 being dealer amounts to deficiency in service as
well as unfair trade practice. Therefore, the present complaint is
allowed and the liability of the OP-1 and OP-2 is joint and several
and as such, both the OPs are directed to replace the refrigerator of
the complainant or to pay the cost of refrigerator amounting to Rs.
8451/- along with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of filing the
complaint i.e.15.5.2009 till realization and further the OP-1 and
OP-2 are directed to pay compensation as well as litigation
expenses of Rs. 1500/-. The OPs are directed to pay this amount
within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per
rules.
Announced on this 17h day of March ,2015