DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 275

 Instituted on:   15.06.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     15.03.2021

Himmat Kumar son of Desh Bandhu, resident of Patti Gahu, Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     New Goyal Radios, Opposite Sharma Sweet, Chotta Chowk, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

2.     Haier Refrigerator Corp. Office B-1/A-14, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 through its Chairman.

3.     Haier Appliances (India) Private Limited, Building No.1, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III New Delhi-110020.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   : In person.              

        For the OPs                        : Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

FACTS

1.             Shri Himmat Kumar,  complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant purchased one refrigerator from  OP number 1 for Rs.30,000/- vide bill dated 1.12.2017 and the OP number 1 assured that the refrigerator in question is having one year warranty for the same.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of April, 2018 the refrigerator in question stopped working properly as the upper part of the refrigerator did not cool. As such, the complainant approached OP number 1, who sent the mechanic to the house of the complainant and he after inspection told that there is some minor problem and after that the refrigerator will work properly. The Op number 1 repaired the refrigerator but it did not work again.  The complainant again in the month of May, 2018 complained about the non working of the refrigerator and lodged the complaint on their toll free number and after receipt of the complaint, the Op sent the mechanic, but he failed to set right the same.  The grievance of the complainant is that the refrigerator is not working properly. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the above said refrigerator along with interest and further to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

WRITTEN VERSION

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question for Rs.28,000/- only. It has been denied that there was a warranty of one year on behalf of the OP number 1 rather the warranty was on behalf of the company.  It has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OP or the OP sent any mechanic to the complainant. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.     

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed material facts and that the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it has been denied that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question. It has been admitted that the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP and the Op appointed a mechanic/service engineer to visit the premises of the complainant and to resolve the problem. The engineer visited and satisfied the customer without any charge.  It has been denied that the refrigerator is not working properly.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.       

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased one refrigerator from the Op number 1 for Rs.30,000/- vide bill dated 1.12.2017 and the OP number 1 assured that the refrigerator in question is having one year warranty for the same. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the refrigerator in question stopped cooling twice due to manufacturing defect therein, but the Ops failed to set right the cooling in the refrigerator, as such has stated that the Ops supplied the defective refrigerator to the complainant. As such,  the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question for Rs.28,000/- only. The learned counsel for the Ops has further argued that there was a warranty of one year on behalf of the OP number 2 and 3 i.e. the company.  It has been further argued that the complainant never approached the OP or the OP sent any mechanic to the complainant. Thus, the OPs have prayed that the complaint be dismissed.       

7.             To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 the copy of bill for Rs.28,000/- of the refrigerator, Ex.C-2 is the affidavit of Himmat Kumar complainant and has deposed as per the complaint,  Ex.C-3 is the complaints, Ex.C-4 is the document of Haier and Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-6 are the messages showing that the refrigerator in question was defective one and the complainant lodged the complaints with the Ops for repair of the same.  The Op number 2 has also produced the affidavit of Shri Kamal Kaushil, Area Sales Manager Ex.OP2/1 and has stated that there was no defect in the refrigerator. But we are unable to accept the contention of the Ops that there is no defect in the refrigerator as the complainant has sufficiently proved on record that the refrigerator in question is defective one. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to refund the cost of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.28000/- to the complainant along with interest. 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.28000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.6.2018 till realization.  We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        March 15, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President