THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 308 of 2014
Date of Institution : 02.06.2014
Date of Decision : 29.05.2015
Tarsem Masih son of Sadiq Masih resident of village Mahal, near Mata Rani Mandir, Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Hardeep Radio and Electric Works Cemetry Road, Putlighar, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized to receive the summons
M/s. Kelvinator Refrigerator Service Centre, Near Bhayan Da Shivala Tilak Nagar, Amritsar through its authorized officer/Incharge
M/s. Tek Care India Pvt.Ltd., 15 KM Stone, Aurangabad, Paithan Road, Village Chitegaon Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad 431105 (Maharashtra)
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. J.S.Pannu,Advocate
For opposite parties No.2 & 3 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Tarsem Masih under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has purchased Kelvinator fridge vide bill No. 3079 dated 22.4.2013 for Rs. 12500/-. According to the complainant from the date of purchase the fridge is not giving cooling . Complainant made complaint with the opposite party in the month of May 2013 vide complaint No. JAL2905130152, JAL22071130053 , JAL22071130053 as well as JAL1905140068 and the mechanic of opposite party No.2 came to attend the complaint but the fridge could not be repaired. Thereafter complainant made several complaint with opposite party No.1 but till date no response has been made to the complaint of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator with new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the fridge amounting to Rs. 12500/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that refrigerator is not cooling. There is no such complaint ever lodged by the complainant. The company got a direct repair centre and the same was communicated to the complainant to lodge a complaint with the company M/s. Kelvinator Refrigerator and the service was provided by the company. It was denied that opposite party No.1 has ever assured the complainant regarding replacement of the refrigerator. It was denied that refrigerator is not cooling. While denying and controverting other allegations dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 did not appear and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.9.2014. Opposite party No.3 also did not appear and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.4.2015.
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for opposite party No.1.
5. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Kelvinator fridge from opposite party No.1 on 22.4.2013 vide bill/invoice Ex.C-2 for Rs. 12500/-. The complainant alleges that from the very beginning the refrigerator was not giving cooling. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party in May 2013 vide complaint No. JAL2905130152, JAL22071130053 , JAL22071130053 as well as JAL1905140068. The complainant submitted that a mechanic from opposite party No.2 service centre came to attend the complaint but the fridge could not be repaired properly. Thereafter one Satinder Singh Mechanic came to the house of the complainant, who also checked the fridge of the complainant. The complainant lodged another complaint on 22.7.2013. Then mechanic came from opposite party No.2 , who culd not repair the fridge properly rather stated that the fridge is defective one and requires replacement. Thereafter the complainant made complaint in May 2014. Even then the opposite party did not make the fridge fully functional. The complainant submitted that the opposite party neither repaired the fridge of the complainant nor replaced the same. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
6. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that the opposite party No.1 is only a retailer and sold the product to the complainant which was manufactured by opposite party No.3. It is the company or the service centre who are responsible for the repair of the product during the warranty period. As such opposite party No.1 has no liability to repair or replace the product. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
7. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Kelvinator fridge from opposite party No.1 on 22.4.2013 vide invoice Ex.C-2 for Rs. 12500/-. The said fridge did not work properly and the complainant lodged complaint with opposite party on their Toll free No./customer care number vide complaint No. . JAL2905130152, JAL22071130053 , JAL22071130053 as well as JAL1905140068. The complainant submitted that one mechanic came and repaired the fridge but the fridge did not function properly. Again one Satinder Singh Mechanic came from opposite party No.2 service centre, who also set right the fridge in question. But even then the fridge did not function properly and then again on 22.7.2014 complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party. This time again mechanic came but could not repair the fridge properly and make it fully functional. Then the complainant lodged complaint in May 2014 . Even then the opposite party could not repair the fridge and make it fully functional. No doubt the complainant did not produce any job sheet. But the averment made by the complainant on oath through his affidavit Ex.C-1 remained unrebutted and unchalenged as none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 despite service to contest the claim of the complainant nor opposite parties No.2 & 3 produce any evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. So it stands fully proved on record that the fridge of the complainant became defective during the warranty period. As such opposite parties No.2 & 3 are liable to repair the same and make it fully functional without charging any amount. But they failed to do so.
8. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are directed to repair the fridge of the complainant and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount. If the fridge is not repairable , then opposite parties No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the fridge i.e. Rs. 12500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
29.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
