Delhi

North East

CC/98/2018

Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Refrigeration Company - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 98/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sanjay Aggarwal S/o Sh. Suresh kumar Garg R/o H.No. 1449/11D, Durgapuri, Gali No.10 Shahdara,Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	National Refrigeration Company 2 & 3 Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj Delhi-110002   Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. GH-1, G.F. Vardhaman Grand Plaza, Plot No.7, Sector-3, Manglam Place New Delhi-110085, Delhi	Opposite Party No.1          Opposite Party No. 2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

21.05.18 09.12.22 15.03.23

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant is running a small shop for his livelihood and he purchased a refrigerator model no. SRC380GL vide retail invoice no. A-1086 dated 30.04.18 for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- from Opposite Party No.1, National Refrigeration Company which is seller of refrigerators. The Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. is the Manufacturer. It is stated by the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have provided one year manufacturing warranty which is mentioned in the invoice issued by Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant further submitted that he started using the refrigerator from the same day but the refrigerator was not working as it was not cooling. The Complainant immediately called the Opposite Party No.1 and requested him to replace the refrigerator with new one. The Opposite Party No.1 refused to replace the refrigerator in question and told him that the same can be repaired by manufacturer by calling the customer care of Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, on 30.04.2018, the Complainant lodged the Complaint with Opposite Party No.2 and on 01.05.18, the Opposite Party No.2 sent their service engineer who informed the complainant that the main gas pipe of refrigerator was broken and there was no gas in the cooing panel. He also replaced several parts in the refrigerator vide job card no. WRL/17-18/1173/14664. The Complainant alleged that the service engineer of Opposite Party No.2 left the oil leaking from the refrigerator and after one hour of repair of the refrigerator, it stopped cooling again. The Complainant again called the service engineer of Opposite Party No.2 who assured to come on 02.05.18 but he did not turn up. The Complainant submitted that he again lodged the complaint with Opposite Party No.2 on 05.05.18 and then another service engineer visited to see the condition of the refrigerator and stated that there was a major fault in the refrigerator and expressed his incompetence to repair the same having job card no. WRL/17-18/1173/14691 dated 07.05.18. The Complainant stated that another engineer came on 07.05.18 to repair the refrigerator in question and stated that there were lots of defects in the refrigerator which could not be repaired. It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 is neither repairing the refrigerator nor replacing it with new one as the refrigerator is under warranty. The Complainant also made a written complaint to the Opposite Party No.2 but their officials refused to exchange the refrigerator. The Complainant submitted that he lodged a complaint vide complaint no. 728258 on 12.05.18 and requested to refund the cost of the refrigerator, the Complainant also sent various e-mails to Opposite Party No.2 dated 11.05.18, 12.05.18, 13.05.18, 14.05.18, 15.05.18, 16.05.18, 17.05.18 and 18.05.18. The Complainant stated that the refrigerator in question is under warranty but still the Opposite Parties are not repairing it or replacing the same. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 27,000/- i.e. the cost the refrigerator with interest @ 18 % p.a. He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 21,000/- for litigation charges.
2. On service of notice, both the Opposite Parties entered their appearance and filed their replies.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. The Opposite Party No.1, National Refrigeration Company, the seller of refrigerators, filed their written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the present complaint is malafide because they provided necessary service and never denied replacement or assistance. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for being false and misleading.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

4. The Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd, the manufacturer also filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.2, while taking preliminary objections, that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, it is averred that the Complainant in not consumer as he was using the refrigerator for commercial purpose. It is further stated that they sent their technician on the same day of complaint and found the defect in the product due to mishandling as the capillary of the refrigerator was broken and there was no manufacturing defect. It is also averred that the technician replaced the capillary and refilled the gas and closed the complaint satisfactorily. It is further submitted that they never refused to replace or repair the product. It is averred that they offered to replace the product as the Complainant was making false complaint and prohibiting the engineer to repair the product but the Complainant refused to receive the new refrigerator. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed for being false and misconceived.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

5. The Complainant filed the rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint. The Complainant has vehemently denied that he was using the refrigerator for commercial purpose, so, not a consumer. It is submitted that he was running a small shop for his livelihood and purchased the subject refrigerator for that and also mentioned this fact in the complaint itself.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

7. It is pertinent to mention that in spite of having given several opportunities, Opposite Party No.1 failed to file their evidence, hence, vide order dated 12.04.2019, their defence was closed.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

8. The Opposite Party No.2 in support of its case has filed the affidavit of Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, AGM in Opposite Party No.2, Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. GH-1, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Plot No.7, Sector-3, Manglam Place, Rohini, Delhi-110085. In his affidavit, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No.2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments and Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant and the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.
10. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant was running a small shop for his livelihood and he purchased a refrigerator with one year manufacturing warranty from Opposite Party No.1, National Refrigeration Company. The Complainant alleged that the said refrigerator was not working well from the beginning and in spite of repairs done by the representative of Opposite Party No.2 i.e. manufacturer, the product could not work satisfactorily. It is stated that there were lots of defects in the refrigerator which could not be repaired. It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 is neither repairing the refrigerator nor replacing it with new one as the refrigerator was under warranty. The Complainant stated that the refrigerator in question is under warranty but still the Opposite Parties are not repairing it or replacing the same. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
11.  The case of contesting Opposite Party No.2 i.e. manufacturer is that the Complainant is not consumer as he was using the refrigerator for commercial purpose. It is further submitted that they sent their technician on the same day of complaint and found the defect in product due to mishandling as the capillary of the refrigerator was broken and there was no manufacturing defect. Accordingly, the technician replaced the capillary and refilled the gas and closed the complaint satisfactorily. It is further submitted that they never refused to replace or repair the product. On the contrary, they offered to replace the product as the Complainant was making false complaint and prohibiting the engineer to repair the product but the Complainant refused to receive the new refrigerator. Therefore, they have never been deficient in providing services to the Complainant.
12. The perusal of the file shows that the Complainant had specifically mentioned in the complaint that he was running a small shop for his livelihood and purchased the subject refrigerator for that and further rebutted the contention of the Opposite Party in his rejoinder also. In the absence of any evidence on record proving that the complainant was using the product in question for commercial purpose, the contention deserves to be rejected; hence, the Complainant is very much a consumer under the Consumer protection Act, 1986.
13.  It is further observed on perusal of job sheets relied upon by the Complainant that the product in question was repaired on the very next day of the purchase. On the other hand, the contention of the Opposite Party is that the defect in the product was found due to mishandling as the capillary of the refrigerator was broken and there was no manufacturing defect. The Opposite Party No.2 has neither corroborated the said contention, nor examined any person to testify the facts alleged, therefore, the contention cannot be accepted. Moreover, the perusal of the job sheet dated 07.05.2018 shows that some repair work was again done on the complaint of the Complainant within a week’s time. The second job sheet also contains the remark that Complainant was not satisfied with the job done. The perusal of the record also shows that the Complainant had registered online complaint on many dates thereafter raising his grievance time and again and requesting for replacement. The Opposite Party No.2 has contended to have offered the replacement of the product but the Complainant refused to receive the new product. However, they have failed to show any evidence in support of their contention such as any offer letter or correspondence in this regards while there are several emails and reminders sent by the Complainant in that regards as shown in the record.
14. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.2 has miserably failed either to repair the product satisfactorily or replace the product with the new one, hence, has been liable for providing deficient services.
15. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd, the manufacturer to pay to the Complainant the cost of the refrigerator i.e. 27,000/- (Rs. Twenty Seven Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. The Opposite Party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) towards compensation and the litigation cost. The Opposite Party No.2 is liable to pay the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks Opposite Party will be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. for the delayed period.
16. Order announced on 15.03.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President