Complainant Sikander has filed the present complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace his fridge with new one or repaid Rs.28,500/- as price of the fridge. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as mental harassment and suffering in his work due to non functioning of fridge alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased a fridge on 25.2.2020 Mark HAIER HRF-2783CKB Forst Free Sr.No.B2062BE8902T3KAFO148 for Rs.28,500/- for his domestic use only. The abovesaid fridge was not working properly and there was no cooling inside the fridge and on the same day he filed a complaint vide No.LD202002218103460 to the company regarding out of order/not working the fridge properly and on 28.2.2020 one engineer Manik Mehta came in his house and checked the fridge, but he told that due to manufacturing defect the fridge was not working properly and unable to cool inside the fridge and he took the photographs of fridge with his mobile phone and sent the picture of the fridge, guarantee card and Sr. No. to the company head office and assured that company would replace the fridge within 7 days, but since the elapse of 7 days no person from opposite parties came for replace the abovesaid fridge. Thereafter he approached the opposite parties many times but they lingered on the matter with one pretext or the other and till today after paying the huge amount he is suffering lot of financial loss as well as mental harassment from the hands of opposite parties. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared through Gaurav Talwar, Area Service Incharge and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs on this score; no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant; complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings; the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed under section 26 of Act and the complainant failed to produce any report of independent technician/engineer to support his claim which is a primary requirement as per the judicial pronouncements of National Commission and Supreme Court of India. On merits, it was submitted that from the date of purchase of the product, every purchaser has to approach the manufacturer so that the product can be installed and the information regarding Do’s and Don’ts can be furnished to the purchaser. However, in the present case, the complainant in its own free will and motion opted to not to contact the opposite parties. The opposite parties have offered a free of cost service which the complainant had not opted and now he is claiming that the product is not functioning properly. It was next submitted that in the present case the complainant used the product in question according to his comparability but not as per the simple guide lines of the manufacturer. On 28 Feb.2020 the complainant made his first complaint vide No.LD20200228103460 and second complaint was registered on 26 May 2020 vide no.LD20200526103615. The opposite parties immediately referred the call to its service center who deputed one service technician to attend and resolve the grievance of the complainant. The service technician visited the complainant’s place and thoroughly inspected the product in question and guided regarding Do’s and Don’ts as per satisfaction of the complainant. The service technician instructed the complainant that there is voltage issue in the residence of the complainant and it will give adverse impact on the performance of the product in question and advised to use voltage controller for better performance of the product in question. On receiving second complaint, opposite party again deputed one technician to examine the complaint/issue of the complainant and after visiting the place, it was found that the cooling issue of the product in question arose due to voltage fluctuation at complainant residence. The voltage required for operating the product in question will be 200-240V but power supply in the complainant residence was 270v voltage. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. On 10.12.2020, Sh.Manjit Singh Prop. Of opposite party no.1 appeared in person in the Commission and made a separate statement stating therein that the written reply filed by opposite party no.2 may kindly be treated as written reply of opposite party no.1.
5. Ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.
6. Alongwith the written statement, opposite party no.2 has filed affidavit of Sh.Gaurav Talwar, Authorized Representative alongwith one document.
7. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of complainant and opposite party no.2.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments filed by complainant and opposite party no.2; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one fridge vide Invoice No.1104, dated 25.2.2020 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.28,500/-. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the message dated 4th March, 2020 received by the complainant from opposite party no.2 regarding the complaint made by the complainant. Annexure A-1 is the chart showing voltage reading at complainant’s house place on record by opposite party no.2.
10. The case of the complainant is that he purchased one fridge on 25.2.2020 for a sum of Rs.28,500/-. Right from the day one, the said fridge was not working properly as there was no cooling inside the fridge and accordingly the complainant filed a complaint vide complaint No.LD202002218103460. On 28.2.2020 one engineer named Malik Mehta visited the house of the complainant and checked the product and told that as there was a manufacturing defect in the fridge, it was unable to cool inside the fridge and he also took the photographsof the fridge and sent the photographs, serial no. and guarantee card to the company Head Office and assured the complainant that the company would replace the fridge within 7 days, but the opposite parties failed to replace the fridge.
11. The version of the opposite parties in their written statement that complainant made his first complaint on 28.2.2020 vide complaint No.LD20200228103460 and the 2nd complaint was registered on 26th May 2020 vide complaint No.LD20200526103615. The Service Technician visited the complainant’s place and detected that there was voltage issue in the complainant’s house, which was having adverse impact on the performance of the product. The technician advised the complainant to use voltage controller. On the second complaint, the technician of the company found that the cooling issue of the product in question was due to voltage fluctuation. The voltage required for operating the product was 200-240V but the power supply in the complainant’s house was 270V.
12. Now the question arises as to whether voltage fluctuation is the only reason for the fridge not giving cooling effect. If there was any voltage issue in the complainant’s house due to which the fridge was not giving cooling, the same could have been easily rectified by the use of voltage stabilizer. The photograph i.e. Annexure ‘A’ produced by the opposite party does not depict that it relates to the premises of the complainant. In the present case, the problem is occurring from the day one of purchasing the product which shows that there must be some manufacturing defect in the product.
13. As an upshot of aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to replace the fridge of the complainant with new one of the same model having same price after taking back the old fridge and if that is not possible, opposite parties should refund the amount of Rs.28,500/- (the same being the price of the product) and the opposite parties are further directed to compensate the complainant for mental tension and agony by paying a compensation for Rs.4,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The entire compliance be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance file be consigned.
(Neelam Gupta)
President
Announced: (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)
September 03, 2021 Member
*MK*
