Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/187/2020

Gagan Saini S/o Buta Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neelkhant Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.187 of 2020

Date of instt: 22.06.2020 

                                                Date of Decision: 22.03.2022.

 

Gagan Saini son of Shri Buta Singh resident of house No.1024, Hargovind Nagar, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                                               ……..Complainant.

                                  Vs.

1. Neelkanth  Enterprises, near Neelkanth Petrol Pump, Karnal Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor/partner.

2.Unique Solutions, Uttam Market, near Old Post Office, Mohan Nagar, Kuruksehtra.

3. LG Electronics India Private Limited, A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3, District Center, Saket New Delhi – 110017 through its Managing Director.

                  

                                                                             ..………Opposite parties.

 

                 Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.  

 

Before       Smt.  Mrs.Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

 

Present:     None for the complainant.

                OP No.1 ex parte.

                Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Adv.for the OP no.2 and 3.

 

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gagain Saini against Neelkanth Enterprises etc.- the opposite parties.

2.         Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Refrigerator Model GL-T402HPZM of LG company from the OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.42,200/- vide bill NO.NED/16-17/0722 dated 2.09.2016 and paid the prince in cash. He Ops had given 1+10 years warranty of the said product. One year warranty was for all parts and further ten years warranty was for the compressor . The said refrigerator  is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and it was not giving proper cooling and the house hold items kept in the said fridge used to become waste on the same day. It is further submtted that the complainant approached the OPNo.1 and made complaint. The mechanic of OP No.1 i.e.OP No.2 came to the house of the complainant and inspected the fridge on 17.3.2020 and he charged Rs.4647/- and extended warranty for one year i.e. 17.3.2020 to 17.3.2021 but he failed to rectify the fault.  Thereafter again the complainant approached the Ops and they assured to rectify the refrigerator. Thereafter waiting for sufficient time, when the Ops failed to do the needful, the complainant made complaints to the manufacturing company through telephone on 19.3.2020, 16.5.2020 and 5.6.2020 but the Ops failed to  remove the defect in the product which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one and has sought compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops but the OP No.1 failed to appear and  contest the case despite due service. Therefore, OP no.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09.09.2020.

4.             OP No.2 and 3 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Purchase of refrigerator was by the complainant from the Ops is admitted. Warranty of the refrigerator for one year + 10 years is also admitted by the OP no.2 and 3 but it is denied that the Ops ever assured of replacement within the warranty period.  It is submitted that it is wrong that the refrigerator is having any manufacturing defect.  It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the AMC of one year warranty. It is submitted AMC/warranty of product is done after thorough inspection of the same and if the product is found to be in perfect working condition, only then the AMC/extended warranty is issued. It is submitted that refrigerator of the complainant could not be repaired due to lockdown imposed by the Govt. of India.  After opening of the lockdown, the Ops sent the mechanic but the complainant refused to get the refrigerator repaired. Thus, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.

6.             The OP No.2 and 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A in their evidence and closed their evidence.

7.             Today, none is present on behalf of the complainant despite calling the case several times since morning. We have perused the case file and have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.2 and 3.

 

8.             As per the complainant , he purchased one Refrigerator Model GL-T402HPZM of LG company from the OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.42,200/- vide bill NO.NED/16-17/0722 dated 2.09.2016 and paid the prince in cash. He Ops had given 1+10 years warranty of the said product. One year warranty was for all parts and further ten years warranty was for the compressor.  It is argued that the  said refrigerator is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and it was not giving proper cooling and the house hold items kept in the said fridge used to become waste on the same day. It is further argued that the complainant approached the OPNo.1 and made complaint. The mechanic of OP No.1 i.e. OP No.2 came to the house of the complainant and inspected the fridge on 17.3.2020 and he charged Rs.4647/- and extended warranty for one year i.e. 17.3.2020 to 17.3.2021 but he failed to rectify the fault. It is argued that due to lock down, the Ops could not rectify the defect in the product and they are ready to remove the same.

9.             From the bill Ex.C-1, purchase of the purchased refrigerator by the complainant is not in dispute. Warranty of 1 + 10 years is also not in dispute but the Ops have argued that the AMC/warranty means there is no replacement of the product and only the extended warranty is for repair purposes. The document Ex.C-2 shows that the said refrigerator is having AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) for one year w.e.f.  17.3.2020 which is well within its limit. The Ops have also not denied for repair of the product. Therefore, it is a fittest case wherein the Ops be ordered to repair the refrigerator of the complainant to his satisfaction. However, due to lockdown due to Covid-19, the stand of the Ops seems to be justified that they could not be able to repair the refrigerator due to lockdown, which they are not ready to repair the refrigerator.  However, during the pendency of the case, the refrigerator has not been repaired even after lock down, therefore there is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops to this extent.

10.            In view of our above findings and reasons, we direct the OP No.2 and 3 to repair the refrigerator of the complainant to his satisfaction. The  Ops are further directed to  make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceeding u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated 22.03.2022.                                                       President.

 

                                                Member             Member.