BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/666 of 12.8.2010 Decided on: 13.5.2011 Gursharan Singh son of Late Sh.Amar Singh resident of House No.3575/5, Lehal Colony, near Brar Fine Arts Academy, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Only Jolly Sales near Modi College, Lower Mall, Patiala, through its Proprietor/Partner. 2. L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida-201306(U.P.) ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Dalbir Singh, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.S.L.Bajaj, Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT The complainant had purchased one refrigerator bearing No.00SLPJK005212 make LG-REF281-FEGS of the capacity of 270 Liters for a sum of Rs.14900/- against invoice no.481 dated 19.7.2010 from op no.1. 2. Since from the date of the purchase the refrigerator had been giving trouble, the same was replaced by op no.1 on 2.8.2010 with another refrigerator No.005LPUH004918. 3. On the next date of the replacement of the original refrigerator, the replaced refrigerator started giving the same problem in its functioning and the mater was brought to the notice of op no.1.At the asking of op no.1, the complainant returned the replaced refrigerator on 3.8.2010 for being replaced with another one and the op acknowledged the receipt of the refrigerator on the back of the invoice / bill No.481 dated 19.7.2010 having written “delivery pending”. 4. Since 3.8.2010 the complainant had been approaching the ops for the replacement of the refrigerator but to no effect. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act)for a direction to the ops to replace the defective refrigerator with the new one or return the sale price alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of the purchase; to pay Rs.20000/- by way of damages for harassment and mental agony and further to pay Rs.5000/-as costs of the complaint. 5. ` On notice, the ops appeared and filed the written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that when the customer reported the moisture problem in the refrigerator, the authorized engineer of the company looked into the same and found that the refrigerator was OK. When the complainant approached the ops with the problem, for his satisfaction, the refrigerator was replaced with new one. When again the complainant approached the op no.1 for the replacement of the refrigerator, the refrigerator was found to be perfectly alright by the engineer. Even then the op no.1 offered the complainant to have the refrigerator of his choice of another model with payment of the difference of the price or to take the refund of the refrigerator. However, the complainant failed to settle the matter thereafter. Ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. The parties have led their evidence. 7. The parties filed the written arguments, we have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence/record on the file. 8. During the course of the arguments Sh.S.L.Bajaj, the learned counsel for ops suffered the statement that op no.1 has got no objection in case an order for the refund of the price of the refrigerator is passed against op no.1.However, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this offer was made by the ops in the written version filed by them before the Forum on 1.10.2010 but no efforts were made by the ops to deliver the cheque of the price of the refrigerator. The complainant was deprived of the use of the refrigerator and the return on his capital for a period of more than 9 months as on date, the refrigerator having been purchased on 29.7.2010 vide invoice,Ex.C3. Therefore, it was submitted that the complainant may be compensated for the harassment suffered by him at the hands of the ops qua the expenses incurred by him in filing the complaint. 9. We have considered the submissions. 10. The ops have not produced on file any report to have been obtained by them from the engineer to show that the replaced refrigerator no.005LPUH004918 was working properly and there was no fault in the same. Therefore, it would appear that the complainant was rightly aggrieved with the defective working of the refrigerator. The ops are certainly obliged to refund the price of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.14900/- .The complainant had to suffer for a period of more than 9 months because of the non cooperative attitude of the ops either in providing a new refrigerator or the price there of .Consequently, we accept the complaint and give a direction to op no.1 to return the amount of Rs.14900/-, price of the refrigerator with interest @10% per annum w.e.f.19.7.2010 till final payment by way of issuing a cheque/draft in favour of the complainant within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. Op no.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- by way of compensation for the harassment/inconvenience suffered by the complainant and the said amount includes the costs of the complaint. The said payment of Rs.5000/-shall also be paid by op no.1 within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of the order. Pronounced. Dated:13.5.2011 Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | , | | 
