Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 214.
Instituted on : 17.05.2018.
Decided on : 13.05.2019.
Sewa Ram Malik son of Sh. Narain Singh, Resident of Village Chhichhrana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat, at present residing at House No. 345, Sector-4, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Om Sai Service, Near Subhash Takij Gali, Subhash Road, Rohtak, through its Manager/Director.
- Shree Balaji Traders, 5-A, Palika Bazar, Rohtak through its owner.
3. Videocon Industries Ltd., Plot No. 296, Udhog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Gurgaon-122016.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Ms. Rekha, A.R. of complainant in person.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.06.2017, the complainant has purchased a refrigerator Kelvinator Co. from the respondent No. 2 for Rs.15,800/- on dated 30.06.2017. It is alleged that after purchasing of said refrigerator, it did not work properly and the complainant told to respondent No. 2 for replacement of the said refrigerator. That the respondent No. 2 replaced the refrigerator in question. It is further alleged that the replaced refrigerator worked fine for some days, but after that it was not cooled down. It is further alleged that the complainant asked the opposite party No. 2 to change the same again, but respondent No. 2 refused for the same and asked the complainant to contact the respondent No.1. It is further alleged that the complainant approached to respondent No. 1 for replacement of the refrigerator but the respondent No. 1 replied that the refrigerator in question is under warranty, so they will repair the same. That the refrigerator in question is not working properly even after 3-4 repairs by the opposite party No.1. That complainant also approached to respondent No. 3, but all in vain and problem in the refrigerator in question is as it is. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective refrigerator is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of refrigerator in question or to provide any other company’s refrigerator and also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs.13,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice were issued to opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No. 1 and 2 received back duly served, but they failed to appear before the Forum despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.09.2018 passed by this Forum. Whereas, notice issued to opposite party No. 3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, opposite party No. 3 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.11.2018 of this Forum.
3. A.R. for the complainant in her evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed her evidence on dated 03.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question on 30.06.2017 for Rs.15800/- and the same is proved from the bill ExC1. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the refrigerator in question was having manufacturing defect which was replaced by the opposite party No.2 within two hours of its purchase. But the replaced refrigerator was also defective and the defect could not be removed by the opposite parties despite 3-4 repairs made by them. Hence the complainant has sought refund of price of refrigerator or to get provide new refrigerator of other company to the complainant. On the other hand, it is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not repairing the refrigerator stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.3 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of refrigerator in question.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the price of refrigerator i.e. Rs.15800/-(Fifteen thousand eight hundred only) and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the refrigerator in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
