DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/432.

Date of Institution   : 15.06.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 19.07.2022.

Raghav Kataria son of Sh. Parkash Chander, resident of H.No. 50, Gali No. 2, Green City, Palah Sahib Road, Amritsar.   

                …Complainant Versus

1.M/s Talwar Electronics, Golden Market, near Chowk Shastri Market, Amritsar through its Proprietor/Manager; 

2.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.     

                 …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended upto date. 

Present: Sh. Raghav Kapoor Adv counsel for complainant.

Opposite party No. 1 exparte.

Mrs. Preeti Mahajan Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2. 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date against M/s Talwar Electronics and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one new refrigerator Samsung RSS1K56H02A/TL from the opposite party No.1 against bill No. 1612 dated 3.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- and the said product was manufactured by the opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that the said refrigerator was not working properly since the day of its purchase and started giving problem of not giving proper chilling, not working properly, not creating cubes. The complainant accordingly approached the opposite party No. 1 and informed regarding the above said problems and accordingly complaint No. 4249205994 dated 9.11.2017, complaint No. 1144425784 dated 14.1.2018 and complaint No. 4254558175 dated 6.2.2018 were lodged with the opposite party No. 2. It is further alleged that the Engineer of the opposite party visited the premises and found that there is some inherent problem/defect in the product and assured that the product will be replaced within few days, but till date the opposite party has failed to replace the said product. The said product is within the warranty period and the opposite parties are bound to replace the same with new one of the same model and price. The complainant time and again visited and requested the opposite parties in this regard, but of no use. Due to the above said act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To replace the aforesaid refrigerator with a new one of same model and price without having any inherent defect in it or to refund the price of Rs. 1,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till payment. 

ii)To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 22,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

3. Notice was sent to opposite party No. 1 but they failed to appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.8.2018 of this Commission. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of concealment of material facts, no territorial jurisdiction, present complaint is vague and frivolous etc. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 denied the case of the complainant. It is submitted that complainant purchased new Samsung refrigerator from the opposite party No. 1 against bill/invoice No. 1612 dated 3.11.2017 for Rs. 1,06,000/-. It is further alleged that the complaint No. 4249205994 dated 9.11.2017 was not a complaint regarding working of refrigerator, rather it was request for installation and demonstration of its working and no such complaint was lodged on 14.1.2018. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged on 6.2.2018 which was duly attended by the service engineer and on inspection he found that problem of low cooling can be rectified, as the product was under warranty and he offered to rectify the problem fee of cost, but the complainant for the reasons best known to him refused to get the product rectified and kept on insisting for replacement of the product. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In support of his case the complainant at the time of filing the present complainant filed his own affidavit Ex.C1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.   

6. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 2 at the time of filing written version has filed affidavit of Anup Mathur. 

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the complainant. Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite party No. 2. 

8. The complainant has purchased the refrigerator in question from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No. 1612 dated 3.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/-. The complainant alleged in the complaint that since the day of its purchase the said refrigerator started giving problem of not giving proper chilling, not working properly and not creating cubes. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and informed regarding the above said problems and accordingly complaint No. 4249205994 dated 9.11.2017, complaint No. 1144425784 dated 14.1.2018 and complaint No. 4254558175 dated 6.2.2018 were lodged which was provided by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the Engineer of the opposite party visited the premises and found that there is some inherent problem/defect in the product and assured that the product will be replaced within few days, but till date the opposite party has failed to replace the said product and the said product is within the warranty period and the opposite parties are bound to replace the same with new one of the same model and price.

9. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 filed written version and admitted that complaint was lodged by the complainant on 6.2.2018, but it is denied that complaint was lodged on 14.1.2018. The complaint dated 6.2.2018 was attended by the service Engineer and on inspection he found that the problem of low cooling can be rectified, as the product was under warranty but the complainant refused to get refrigerator rectified and insisting for replacement of product. From the evidence produced by the complainant Ex.C-1 it is cleared that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator on 3.11.2017 and the opposite party has admitted in its written version that the refrigerator is under warranty when the Engineer visited the premises of the complainant. The complainant has also produced the screen shot messages sent by the opposite party i.e. Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 vide which it is established that the complainant had lodged his complaints with the opposite party No. 2 twice. The opposite party No. 2 has failed to produce any evidence that the complainant only registered complaint once as alleged in its written version. Moreover, the opposite party No. 2 admitted in its written version that the refrigerator in question was defected and there was problem of low cooling in the refrigerator. The opposite party failed to establish that the Engineer of the opposite party offered the complainant to get rectified the defect from the company. From the above discussion and evidence produced by the complainant, it is established that the refrigerator was under warranty period and was suffered from defect and there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 2 by not rectifying the refrigerator in question. 

10. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 is directed to replace the refrigerator in question with new one of the same model within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party No. 2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint. The opposite party No. 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs. 2,200/- on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       19th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member