BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.146 of 2016
Date of Institution : 06.06.2016
Date of Decision : 16.06.2017.
Lovnish Mittal son of Shri Rama Nand Mittal, resident of ward No.9, Near Public Health Department Office, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Punjab Radio, Main Bazar, Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa through its proprietor/ partner.
- Manager/ Incharge/ Authorized person, Haier Appliancer India Pvt. Ltd., Building no.1. Okhla, Industrial Estate, Phase No.11, Opposite Modi Mill, New Delhi- 110020.
- Vaishnavi Service Point, (Authorized Haier Service Centre) Gali No.3, Bhagat Singh Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT…………… PRESIDING MEMBER
SH.MOHINDER PAL RATHI ………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.K. Kochar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte vide order dated 11.1.2017.
Opposite party no.2 exparte vide order dated 31.10.2016.
Opposite party no.3 exparte vide order dated 25.5.2017.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief is that complainant purchased one refrigerator (Deep Freezer) make Haier bearing model No. HCF-460HTQ, chassis No.B30GL8EBUCC30029 from opposite party no.1 being authorized dealer of the company for a sum of Rs.26,500/- vide bill No.910 dated 29.4.2013. The op no.2 is the manufacturing company of Haier and op no.3 is care centre of the company. The op no.1 had given the warranty of the aforesaid Deep Freezer for 48 months and it was assured by op no.1 on behalf of op no.2 that during the period of one year from the date of its purchase, all the defect shall be removed by the ops free of charge. It was also assured by the ops that in case of any manufacturing defect, they will replace it with new one. The above said deep freezer delivered by the ops to the complainant is in very defective condition and not working well due to manufacturing defect in it and became totally out of order. It is further averred that complainant immediately visited op no.1 and narrated the defect and requested him either to repair the same or to replace the same with new one. After checking it, the repair was made vide bill No.298 dated 24.10.2015 by op no.3 and received an amount of Rs.1120/- from the complainant but even then the refrigerator is not in working condition. The complainant made oral requests as well as written complaints to the ops so many times but no solution was made by the ops. The engineer/ mechanic of M/s Dhamija Refrigration inspected the above said deep freezer on 11.3.2016 and found that there is no cooling in the freeze due to manufacturing defect. The ops have not redressed the grievance of the complainant despite several visits and requests and legal notice dated 8.2.2016 and have caused deficiency in service and harassments to the complainant as well as financial and commercial loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops no.1 and 2 did not appear and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3. Initially opposite party no.3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of material facts; estoppal; mis joinder and non joinder of parties and that complaint is hopelessly time barred. On merits, it has been asserted that warranty period of 48 months as shown by the complainant is denied being incorrect because the warranty period is not subject to any verbal assurance by any dealer/ sub dealer rather the same is subject to the warranty conditions laid down by the company. The replying op is not liable for any kind of claim as alleged by complainant. The replying op is working as authorized care centre of company and providing services to the eligible consumers as per the norms of the company. It has been further submitted that earlier the D-fridge of the complainant was brought at the care centre of the op with the defect therein as the complainant complained of “No cooling” by the product and the replying op in discharge of its duties as care centre of the company and as the product was within the warranty period, provided the services/ repair work on the product totally free of cost and product was put in order to the entire satisfaction of the consumer and same was received by him vide job sheet dated 31.3.2014. However, now as the product has gone out of warranty period and as such the replying op is not liable for any services qua the product free of cost and as such on problem in the product the same has been put in order by the replying op after charging the due service charges on account of which complainant is biased and just in order to harass and humiliate the replying op has filed this false complaint while fact remains that the product purchase date is 31.12.2013 and the warranty period had already been lapsed and that complainant had already availed the services from the company through their care centre free of cost. But now the complainant in the guise of this false complaint wants to get the undue benefits, hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief qua the replying op. It has been further submitted that no such bill No.298 dated 24.10.2015 of Rs.1120/- has been issued by the replying op. The alleged report if any procured by the complainant carries no legal value being false and manipulated one and does not confer any right in favour of complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh. Harish Kumar, proprietor of Dhamija Refrigeration Ex.C2, copy of cash/credit memo dated 29.4.2013 Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 24.10.2015 Ex.C4, copy of warranty policy Ex.C5, copy of report dated 11.3.2016 Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7 and copy of postal receipt Ex.C8.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that on 18.4.2017 none appeared on behalf of op no.3 and therefore, op no.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.5.2017.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It is established on record that complainant purchased the Deep Freezer in question from opposite party no.1 on 29.4.2013 for a sum of Rs.26.500/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C3. As per copy of warranty policy, comprehensive warranty (except Plastic, Glassware, Gasket, non electrical and non system parts, light bulbs) was 12 months and the warranty for compressor of the Deep Freezer was 48 months. From copy of bill dated 24.10.2015, it is evident that an amount of Rs.1120/- was charged from the complainant by op no.3 i.e. service centre for replacement of relay and capacitor. The complainant is alleging problem of ‘No cooling’ by the product in question which is a problem related to the compressor and the compressor carries warranty of four years i.e. within warranty period. The complainant has also placed on file copy of report dated 11.3.2016 given by Sh. Harish Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Dhamija Refrigeration as Ex.C6 in which it is mentioned that they checked the deep freezer and it was not giving cooling and the market value of capacitor installed in it is Rs.70/-/80/-. The complainant has also placed on file affidavit of said Harish Kumar as Ex.C2 wherein it is testified that he is qualified for repairing of refrigerator and other equipments. On 11.3.2016, he inspected one Deep Freezer of Lovnish Mittal and at that time he found that there was no cooling in it and same was not working due to defect in compressor. This is a manufacturing defect in the Deep Freezer and it cannot be repaired and his report is Ex.C6. The opposite parties have not rebutted the evidence led by the complainant. The ops No.1 and 2 even did not bother to appear before this Forum after notice whereas op no.3 after appearance and after filing written statement failed to appear before the Forum and opted to be proceeded against exparte. As such there is no rebuttal to the evidence of the complainant and it is proved on record that there is defect in the compressor of the Deep Freezer and as such it is not giving cooling. The Retailer and Care Centre are the arms of the company through whom the company is conducting business and company including the retailer and care centre are earning profits. Hence, all the opposite parties are equally liable to provide services to the consumer. In the present case, we have observed deficiency in service on the part of all the three ops. As such all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to make the said Deep Freezer defect free. However, the complainant is not entitled to amount of Rs.80,000/- as claimed by him for commercial loss.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the Deep Freezer in question and to make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any, free of costs and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is directed to produce the Freezer alongwith copy of this order to Vaishnavi Service Point Sirsa i.e. OP no.3 under proper written intimation to all the ops within a period of seven working days from receipt of copy of this order. In case the ops fail to set the Freezer defect free within said 30 days, they will refund an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant against the price of Rs.26,500/- i.e. after deduction of Rs.6500/- as depreciation within further 30 days, failing which the ops will also pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day in addition to amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:16.06.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
