Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/133

RAGHBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROP. SATNAM RADIOS - Opp.Party(s)

JASWINDER SINGH DHILLON

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        133

Date of Institution :   21.04.2017

Date of Decision :     11.09.2017

 

Raghbir Singh aged about 40 years s/o Bant Singh r/o Village Panj Grain Kalan, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Satnam Radios, Bus Stand, Panj Grain Kalan (Faridkot), through its Proprietor Satnam Singh s/o Basant Singh r/o village Panj Grain Kalan.
2. Dhingra Electronics, Authorized Dealer of Godrej Appliances, Line Bazar, Faridkot through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
3. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Plot No. A-40, Phase ViiiA, Industrial Area, Mohali (Punjab) 160059.

                                    ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh J S Dhillon, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Davinder Dhingra, Representative of OP-2,

 Sh Dinesh Jindal, Ld Counsel for OP- 3,

 OP-1 Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective refrigerator or to refund its cost price of Rs.10,100/- and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 10,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a refrigerator make Godrej of 181 ltr having 5 year warranty from OP-1 vide bill no.1835 dated 7.04.2016. It is contended that since purchase, refrigerator in question started giving troubles to complainant as its motor used to get jam. Complainant made a complaint regarding this fact to OP-1, who asked him to meet OP-2 the authorized dealer of these products. Complainant duly reported the matter to OP-2 who sent his mechanic to the place of complainant. said mechanic after thoroughly checking the refrigerator stated that motor of the refrigerator is jam and it needs replacement. Complainant requested both OP-1 and 2 to replace the motor, but they put him off saying that refrigerator in question is manufactured by OP-3 and only OP-3 is liable to replace the same. Complainant made many requests to Ops to change the motor or replace the refrigerator with some other batch or model, but all his efforts to get it replaced bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief of replacement of said machine. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.02.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OPs.

4                                      Notice issued to OP-1 through registered post, received back with report of Postal Authorities as ‘unclaimed’. It is observed that OP-1 has sufficient notice of complaint filed against him, but Op-1 is intentionally evading the service of summons and is not interested in contesting the complaint. Therefore, vide order dated 12.06.2017, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.     

5                             On receipt of the notice, OP-2 and 3 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as he has not represented true facts and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. However, on merits, ld counsel for OP-2 and 3 have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Forum that complainant made purchases of said article from them. it is also admitted that they received complaint no.957750 on 18.11.2016 for noise of refrigerator, but denied that there was any problem in the said refrigerator and asserted that it was working properly and was giving proper cooling. It is further admitted by Ops that they received complaint no.959753 dt 4.12.2016 and when they sent their technician to attend the complaint, the said refrigerator was found okay. As per OPs, they also attended complaint no.961509 regarding compressor and complainant agreed to the offer of Ops for replacement of compressor. On attending the complaint no.964847 of complainant, their offer to change the compressor was refused by complainant and demanded replacement of refrigerator with new one. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissed of complaint.

6                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                        The ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Majaz Khan as Ex.OP-2,3/1 and document Ex OP-2,3/2  to 2,3/6 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2 and 3.

8                                                      We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

9                                                 We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator, which has some defect. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of Ops and made several requests to change the same, but Ops paid no heed to his requests. In reply, stand of OPs is that there is no manufacturing defect in said refrigerator. It is brought before the Forum that on complaint by complainant, they sent their technician to the house of complainant, who duly checked the refrigerator in question and also offered to change the compressor of said refrigerator, but complainant himself refused the get the same replaced and insisted for replacement of his refrigerator with new one. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs and asserted that replacement of refrigerator is not permissible in cases, where defect is removable and repairable. It is admitted by Ops that complainant is their consumer and there is also no denial that they received complaints from complainant regarding some problem in his refrigerator.

10                                            From the above discussion and thorough considerations of pleadings of respective parties, we have found that there is some defect in refrigerator and keeping in view the offer made by OPs for replacement of compressor and facts and circumstances of the case, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to OPs to replace the compressor and remove the defect and do effective repairs free of costs as per satisfaction of complainant within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2000/-complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 11.09.2017

                                                    Member                            President

                                                     (P Singla)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc-133/17

Raghbir Singh   Vs   Satnam Radios

 

Present:       Sh J S Dhillon, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Davinder Dhingra, Representative of OP-2,

 Sh Dinesh Jindal, Ld Counsel for OP- 3,

 OP-1 Exparte.

Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 11.09.2017

 

Member                           President  

(P Singla)                        (Ajit Aggarwal)