BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.139 of 2018
Date of Institution: 03.10.2018
Date of Decision : 03.06.2019
Kapil son of Shri Om Parkash c/o Dr.Subhash Narula, Sirsa District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s L.B. Electronics Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its Proprietor/Incharge.
2.J.S.TV Centre, Near Bharat Gun House Arya Samaj Road, Sirsa-125055 through its Manager/Incharge.
3.Kelvinator India Limited, 171, 17th Floor Mittal Court, C-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person with Sh.Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for
complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 & 3 exparte.
Opposite party No.2 given up.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased one refrigerator from opposite party no.1 on 20.04.2017 for a sum 19,000/- and the product in question was having five year guarantee. Unfortunately, there developed defect in the refrigerator within short time of its purchase as there was problem in the freezer of the refrigerator. The complainant contacted the Op No.1 and also lodged complaint No.KAR 1905170004 dated 19.052017 with Op No.3. The engineer of the Op No.3 done the repair work but the defect could not be removed as it again started giving same problem. The complainant again lodged complaint No.KAR-0306170205 dated 03.06.2017 and the Op No.3 again got repaired the same through its engineer with assurance that the same is defect free but the same problem is still existing in the refrigerator. The complainant requested the Ops to redress his grievance as the product in question is within warranty period but the Ops refused to do so, therefore, the complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.11.2018 whereas registered AD was sent to Op No.3 but the same was received back with the report of refusal, therefore, Op no.3 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.04.2019. However, learned counsel for the complainant has given up OP No.2 by making his separate statement on 27.05.2019.
3. The complainant, in evidence, has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A besides documents invoice Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, registered notice Ex.C7 and AD Ex.C8.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the contents and also placed on record documents such as copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, its receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, registered notice Ex.C7 and AD Ex.C8.
6. It is proved fact that on 20.04.2017, the complainant had purchased a Refrigerator from OP No.1 vide bill No.1789 for a sum of Rs.19,000/- and the refrigerator was having five year guarantee. As per allegations of the complainant, the refrigerator was not giving proper cooling in the freezer and is creating problem time and again despite getting the same repaired by the OP No.3. It is also proved on the record that the refrigerator is in warranty period; therefore, it is the legal obligation of the opposite parties to provide after sale service to the customer like complainant but the Ops have failed to do so despite the fact that the complainant has approached the Ops time and again for the redressal of his grievance, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Since the Ops No.1 & 3 did not appear to rebut the plea and evidence of complainant, as such, evidence led by complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to carry out the necessary repairs of the refrigerator and to make the same defect free even by replacing defective parts of the same, without any cost, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In case, it is found that the refrigerator is not repairable, in that eventuality, to replace the same with new one of the same make and model or otherwise to refund the price of the refrigerator. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 03.06.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member
DCDRF, Sirsa
