Haryana

Karnal

CC/433/2022

Dr. Manohar Lal Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paras Electronics And Gift Items - Opp.Party(s)

S.C. Mohan

10 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.433 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 27.07.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 10.12.2024

 

Dr. Manohar Lal Chhabra aged about 58 years son of Shri Bihari Lal, resident of house no.E-1, ICAR, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Regional Centre, Karnal. Aadhar no.5898 5806 0589.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Paras Electronics and Gift Items, 71R,  Model Town, Karnal through its owner.
2. Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. SCO no.7, Top Floor, Sector-3, HSIDC, near Nameste Chowk G.T. Road, Karnal through its owner/Authorized signatory.
3. Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at First floor Building No.1 Okhla Estate, Phase-III, Delhi Sought Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri S.C. Mohan, counsel for the complainant.

    Ms. Shakunta Dagar, counsel for the OP No.1.

    OPs No.2 and 3 exparte, vide order  

     Dt.15.04.2024.

                   

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 29.04.2018, complainant purchased a Haier BMR Refrigerator 320 Ltr. HRB3404OSS-E from the OP No.1, for the consideration of Rs.30,000/-. OP no.3 is the manufacturer of the said refrigerator. At the time of sale of said refrigerator, OP No.1 gave full warranty of compressor for 10 years and other parts of one year. On 29.11.2019, complainant took extended warranty of two years more from the company for which the company has charged an amount of Rs.2465/- from the complainant.  In the month of January 2021, suddenly current started coming in the body of the said refrigerator and it become dangerous to use the said refrigerator, then a complaint was made on 21.01.2021. OP no.2 after checking the refrigerator get right the same temporarily and thereafter on number of times the current came in the refrigerator. Complainant made many complaints to the OP No.3 but no permanent solution was made by the OP No.3 for removing said defect. In the month of September, 2021 the door of said refrigerator stopped functioning properly as its display was not working, then a complaint was lodged by the complainant with the OP no.3. In the month of November 2021, the door of the refrigerator got replaced by the OP No.2. OP no.2 stated that the current was coming due to defect in the door and now no current will come out. On 30.06.2022, the said refrigerator stopped making cooling and freezing ice and then a complaint was made to the OP No.3. After that OP No.3 visited the premises of the complainant and stated that its PCB and compression are not functioning properly and are needed to be replaced but the company is unable to replace the same as the company has stopped manufacturing of said model of refrigerator. Then OP no.2 stated that he has to make alternate system in the refrigerator by making some alteration in the back side body of the refrigerator i.e. by making some cutting etc. and if complainant is interested to do so then he will have to pay Rs.7667/- to the OP No.2. The complainant refused to get repaired the said refrigerator in alternate manner and requested to repair the same in a proper manner but OP no.2 refused to repair the same. The complainant approached and requested the OPs for the replacement of the said refrigerator as same is still under warranty and the company is bound for the same but OPs started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to do anything in the matter. The OP no.3 has supplied a refrigerator which is having manufacturing defect and OP no.3 is liable to replace the same but OP no.3 not replaced the same despite repeated visits and requests. Due to said act and conduct of OPs, complainant has been suffering from great mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to replace the refrigerator in question with new one with extended warranty, to pay a sum of Rs.100000/-for causing mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP  is only a dealer, who has sold the sealed product as manufactured by the company without any tempering and it is the manufacturing company i.e. OPs no.2 and 3, which has provided the warranty of the product as well as are responsible for any defect in the product or replacement of the same. Moreover, the extended warranty as alleged from 29.11.2019 to 28.11.2021 for two years has been provided purely by the service centre of the company on payment of additional charges after the expiry of original one year warranty of the whole product. During the original warranty of one year of the whole refrigerator which was provided by the company, there was no complaint at all in the said product. It is further pleaded that first time there was problem in the refrigerator in the month of January 2021. Moreover, the defect as pointed out by the complainant was removed by the service engineer of the company as submitted by the complainant himself in the complaint. The defect was removed permanently. The duty to remove the defect, if any, in the door or any other part of the refrigerator was of the company or its authorized service centre. The dealer has no role to play in it. The complainant has nowhere pointed out that the product was sold in unsealed condition and due to which there was defect in the refrigerator. The problem in the refrigerator has started during the extended warranty period i.e. after more than two years. The complainant never approached the OP for replacement of the refrigerator. It was for OPs no.2 and 3 to look into the matter, whether the defect was to be removed or the refrigerator was to be replaced. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator it could not given proper service to the complainant for more than two years of its purchase. Moreover, OP no.1 has sold a sealed product of the company, as supplied to it by the company without any tempering. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has lodged his first complaint with the OP and vide complaint no.HR20191129106673, vide which AMC registration was required by the complainant and soon after receiving the complaint the OP has deployed one service technician and the said complainant was duly attended by the service technician and after thorough inspection the AMC registration was done. At that time the set/product was working completely fine. Complainant lodged the second complaint vide complaint no.HR20200908104725 with regard to the cooling issue he was facing which was duly assigned to service technician. The service technician visited the complainant and examines the refrigerator of the complainant and after thoroughly examination he arrived at the conclusion that some part was not working and that part was replaced and thereafter the said product was working fine. It is further pleaded that complainant has lodged his third complaint vide complaint no.HR20211025107161, vide which the door issue was reported, which was duly assigned to service technician. The service technician visited the complainant and examine the refrigerator of the complainant and after thoroughly inspected the product the service technician has come to the conclusion that the door was damaged and thereafter the door was replaced by the service technician. Complainant has lodged his fourth complaint no.HI20210121000218 vide which the water leakage problem was reported, which was duly assigned to service technician. The service technician visited the complainant and thoroughly inspected the refrigerator and thoroughly inspected the product and after some serve to the said product the set was working fine. Complainant has lodged his fifth complaint no.HI20220111000559 again the cooling issue was reported, which duly assigned to the technician. The service engineer thoroughly inspected the product and came to the conclusion that the product was working completely fine. The complainant has lodged the sixth complaint no.KR20220630000205 again the non working issue was reported. The technician has charge the gas and the set was started working fine. Complainant has lodged his seventh complaint no.KR20220723000118 and non working issue was reported, which was duly assigned to the technician. The service technical visited the house of the complainant and found some internal leakage he apprised the customer about the replacement and intimated him about the depreciation cost as the said product was out of warranty but the reason bet known to him he refused the offer. The OP is ready to repair the said product and they have tried for the same but complainant refused for any repair. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet regarding extended warranty Ex.C2, copy of whatsapp messages Ex.C3, copy of aadhar card Ex.C4, rough detail of charges Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 04.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Paras Malik, proprietor Ex.OP1/A, copy of bill/invoice dated 24.09.2018 Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 15.04.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On 15.04.2024 neither anyone have put into appearance on behalf of OPs no.2 and 3 nor they have tendered their evidence after availing several opportunities including one last opportunity. Hence, OPs no.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte by the order of the Commission.

 8.            Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that on 24.09.2018, complainant purchased refrigerator of Haier company from the OP no.1 with the full warranty of compressor for 10 years and other parts of one year.  On 29.11.2019, complainant took the extended warranty of two years more for which company has charged an amount of Rs.2465/-.  During the warranty period, the said refrigerator created problem of current, display was not working, cooling and freezing ice. Complainant made several complaints to the OPs. The representatives of the OPs visited the house of complainant several times to cure the defect but they failed to cure the defect despite their best efforts and lastly representative of OPs said that the refrigerator in question is having a manufacturing defect. Complainant requested the OPs either to replace the defected refrigerator with new one or to refund the actual price of the refrigerator, but OPs neither replaced the said refrigerator nor refund the cost of the same. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP is only a dealer, who has sold the sealed product as manufactured by the company without any tempering. The warranty, if any, provided by the company, so company is responsible for any defect in the product or replacement of the same. The dealer has no role to play and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Complainant has alleged that refrigerator in question was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning.    The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. Complainant has relied upon copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet regarding extended warranty Ex.C2, copy of whatsapp messages Ex.C3, copy of aadhar card Ex.C4, rough detail of charges Ex.C5. Admittedly, in the month of January 2021, current started coming in the body of the said refrigerator and complainant made a complaint to the OPs. In the month of September 2021, the door of the refrigerator stopped functioning properly, complainant lodged a complaint with the OP no.3 and door was replaced by the company. In the month of June 2022, the refrigerator again stopped cooling. It has been proved from the above, the refrigerator in question was having manufacturing defect.

12.           Today, Shri Pardeep Service Incharge of the Company has appeared and submitted that company is ready to rectify the defect from the refrigerator and if the same is not repairable in that eventuality, company will replace the refrigerator with new one on receipt of difference of the cost of the refrigerator. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in compelling circumstances, complainant has purchased new refrigerator now he only wants to refund the cost of the refrigerator. OPs have failed to remove the defect from the refrigerator during the warranty period and also replace the refrigerator with new one or to refund the cost of the refrigerator. Hence, the act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.3 (being manufacturer) to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- as cost of the refrigerator to the complainant.  We further direct the OP no.3 to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. Complainant is directed to handover the defected refrigerator to the OPs. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 10.12.2024    

                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                   Member                          Member