DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 385 of 15.9.2016

                                      Decided on: 10.12.2020

Sunil Singla son of Sh.Sham Lal Singla, c/o Singla Traders, Achar Bazar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. National Agencies, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala, through its Prop.

2. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Head Office, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Y.S.Matta, Member

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member     

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.G.S.Khushdil, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

                                       Sh.Sunil Garg, counsel for OP No.2.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sunil Singla  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against National Agencies and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased Whirpool Frost Free fridge having capacity of 410 Ltr. bearing Sr. No.IWB 908391 for Rs.42,000/- vide bill No.5789 dated 23.9.2015. It is averred that the stamp on the fridge affixed by the company was of 2011 but the same was sold to the complainant in the year 2015.
3. It is further averred that after purchase of the same, the fridge started giving problem as it was not giving cooling. The complainant visited OP No.1 with the request to check the same and to remove the defect occurred therein. It was suggested to the complainant to lodge e-mail complaint on e-mail address i.e. whirlpool sosteam
4. It is further averred that there is manufacturing defect in the fridge as a result of which it is not giving proper cooling and needs to be replaced. The complainant got sent a legal notice dated 22.7.2016 through his counsel which was duly served upon the OPs but to no effect. It amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to replace the fridge in question with new one of the same model and price or to refund the sale price of the same alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
5. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs. OP No.1 did not appear despite service and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2016. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In the written statement, OP No.2 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous ;  that it is nothing but a concocted story to exert illegitimate monetary gain from OP No.2; that the complainant  has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission as how he got this refrigerator of 2011 model in the year 2015 from OP No.1.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the make and serial number of the fridge is matter of record. It is further submitted that from the record, it was found that this serial number was allocated to its product in 2011 and therefore, the product is of 2011 model. The receipt of the complaints through e-mail is admitted by the OP.
7. It is further submitted that replacement of the fridge was offered to the complainant on payment of Rs.6000/- towards depreciation. It is further submitted that when the serial number of the product in question was checked it was found of 2011 and not of 2015 model as claimed by the complainant in his complaint.
8. It is further averred that there is no manufacturing defects in the refrigerator on the replacement of core board, the machine will function properly. It is further submitted that each and every complaint was attended properly and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C18 and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Abhishek Pruthi, Branch Service Manager as Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased Whirlpool frost free fridge on 23.9.2015 for Rs.42,000/-.The ld. counsel further argued that fraud was played by OP No.1 as fridge was of 2011 model but was sold  in the year 2015.The ld. counsel further argued that at the time of purchase of the fridge, it started giving problem and never rectified. The complainant sent legal notice but to no effect. As such the complaint be allowed and the fridge be replaced or to refund the sale price.
13. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 argued that in fact the fridge was purchased in 2011 and not in 2015. No fraud was played by Op No.2 and the fridge was purchased from OP No.1. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no force in the complaint and same be dismissed.
14. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.C1 alongwih the bill,Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C6 and postal receipt Ex.C7.
15. As per the bill Ex.C1, the complainant purchased Whirlpool frost free fridge for Rs.42,000/- on 23.9.2015.Ex.C3 is  e-mail sent to OP No.2 regarding the cheating played by OP No.1.Ex.C4 is another e-mail sent to OP No.2.In the end legal notice was sent. The copy of the same is Ex.C6 and the postal receipt is Ex.C7.     
16. On behalf of OP No.2 Sh. Abhishek Pruthi, tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and  has deposed as per the written statement. In the affidavit he has stated that the complainant bought a fridge of 2011 model in the year 2015 from the OP No.1.So it is admitted by OP No.2 that the fridge was of 2011 model and was sold to the complainant in the year 2015 i.e. after four years.
17. The notice was duly given to OP No.1 but OP No.1 never appeared to defend the case. So it is clear that a fraud was played by OP No.1 and he has sold the fridge of model of 2011 in 2015.
18. In view of our above discussion, the complaint stands allowed and OP No.1 is directed to refund the sale price of Rs.42,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of purchase of the fridge.    OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
19.           Compliance of the order be made by OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date  of receipt of certified copy of this order.         

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 10.12.2020    

          Y.S.Matta            Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

          Member                      Member                                       President