Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/130

Jaspal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saini T.V Center & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. D.S.Deol, Adv

16 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 130 of 16.10.2014

                                 Date of decision               : 16.03.2015

 

Jaspal Kaur, aged about 35 years, wife of Jagtar Singh, resident of Village Ferozepur, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Saini T.V. Centre College Road, Bela, District Rupnagar, through its

    proprietor.

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.4-5, Ist Floor, Sector 8-

    C, Chandigarh.

                                                                            ....Opposite Parties

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SH.V.K. KHANNA, MEMBER

SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. D.S.Deol, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh. Gagandeep Arora Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No. 1

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Jaspal Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To replace the refrigerator in question,

ii)      To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment,

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 09.06.2014, she purchased one refrigerator, Make Samsung, 192-L, bearing Model No.RR1914BCASEITL for a sum of Rs,12,500/- from the O.P. No.1, after taking loan from Kay Kay Finance Co., Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar and has been paying the installments of the same @ Rs.940/- per month, regularly to the said finance company. Since the date of its purchase, the said refrigerator is not working properly, as cooling is not proper, noise used to come from it, its door does not fit properly, due to which insects use to enter in it. It appears that there is some manufacturing defect in it. She approached to the O.P. No.1 and reported about the said defects many times and had also reported about the same to the agency, but to no use, which amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1 filed written statement, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, the factum of purchase of refrigerator in question by the complainant is admitted. However, it is denied that there is any defect in the refrigerator, as alleged by the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant had approached the answering O.P. and reported about the defect in the refrigerator and accordingly, he lodged her complaint and also got the same registered with the Care Centre of O.P. No.2 vide No.4176289540 & 4177221696. It is stated that complainant has filed this complaint only to harass and humiliate the answering O.P. because the answering O.P. had lodged her complaint with the O.P. No. 2 and the liability to remove the defect, if any, in the refrigerator is of the Service Centre of the company, and not of the answering O.P. There has been no negligence or deficiency in service or adoption of any unfair trade practice on the part of the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, against the answering O.P., with heavy costs, the same being without any merit.

 

4.                 None having appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 2.1.2015.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavits of the complainant, Ex. C1 & C2, photocopies of documents Ex.C3 to C11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Charanjit Singh, proprietor of O.P. No.1, as Ex. OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the contesting O.P. No. 1 and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the refrigerator in question, which was purchased by her on 9.6.2014, from O.P. No. 1, was not working properly, since the date of its purchase. The  cooling of the said refrigerator was/is not proper and noise used to come from it. The door of the Refrigerator is also not fitted properly as some insects used to enter in the Refrigerator. It seems that there is some manufacturing defect in it. She approached and lodged the complaint with the O.P. No.1 many times, but nothing was done and finally on 08.07.2014, her husband, Sh. Jagtar Singh, lodged a written complaint with the O.Ps. vide DOP No.9810961907, about the defects in the refrigerator, the same is evident from Ex. OP3, but without any result. Ultimately, he has to file the instant the complaint, therefore, the O.Ps. be directed to replace the refrigerator in question and also to pay compensation along with litigation expenses.

 

8.                In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 submitted that after receipt of the complaint about the defects in the refrigerator, a complaint was lodged/registered with with the Care Centre of O.P. No. 2, immediately. He further submitted that it is not the liability of the O.P. No.1 to repair/remove the defect, if any; rather it is the liability of the Service Centre of the company to repair/remove the defect(s), if any, therefore, complaint against the O.P. No. 1 be dismissed with heavy costs.

 

9.                Admittedly, on 09.06.2014, the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question from the O.P. No.1 and from the Customer details-cum-warranty card, Ex. OP-2, it is apparent that it was having a warranty for a period of 12 months, from the date of its purchase. As per complainant, it was not working properly from the very date of its purchase and she lodged complaint with the O.P. No.1. This fact that the refrigerator was not working properly, has fairly been admitted by the O.P. No. 1. It is also the version of the O.P. No.1 that complaint to that effect was lodged with the Customer Care Center of O.P. No.2, and it was the duty/sole liability of O.P. No.2 to remove the defect(s) occurred in the said refrigerator and make it functional either by repairing/replacing the defective parts. The O.P. No.2 has not preferred to come forward and contest the case, therefore, the allegations contained in the complaint, supported by duly sworn affidavits of the complainant, have gone unrebutted on its behalf. Undisputedly, the warranty (Ex. OP-2) has been given by O.P. No.1, on behalf of the manufacturer i.e. O.P. No.2 and since the said refrigerator was within warranty, therefore, it was the bounded duty of the O.P. No. 2 to set the refrigerator in working order, but it did nothing despite lodging of complaint. The O.P. No. 2 is, thus, deficient in providing services and is liable to set the refrigerator right by repairing/replacing the defective part(s), free of cost. Although, the complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator, but she has failed to prove this fact by placing on record any cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the prayer made for replacement of the refrigerator with a new one cannot be accepted. It may be stated that due to non-removal of the defects occurred in the refrigerator in question, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, therefore, the O.P. No.2 is also liable to pay compensation to her, on this account, along with litigation expenses. So far as the deficiency in service, qua O.P. No.1 is concerned, neither any specific allegation has been made by the complainant against the said O.P. nor the same has been proved. Even otherwise, immediately, after receipt of complaint from the complainant regarding non-functioning of the refrigerator properly, the O.P. No.1 had lodged the complaint with Care Centre of O.P. No.2, as such, we do not find any lapse on the part of the said O.P. in performing its duties and even otherwise as per terms and condition of the warranty, Ex.OP-2, it was the bounded duty of the Care Centre of the manufacturer i.e. O.P. No.2 to remove the defects occurred in the said refrigerator. In this view of the matter, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1, hence, the complaint filed against O.P. No.1 is liable to be dismissed. In the case of ‘Mrs. Karima Merchant vs. Gopal Korgaonkar & others’ 2014(1) CLT 153 the Hon’ble Goa State Commission, Panaji, has held that the tax invoice which was duly signed by the complainant and issued by dealer can be considered to be an agreement between the parties subject to which the sale of mobile was made to the complainant and the dealer could not be made liable either to replace or repair the mobile set sold by him. It has been further held that the liability, if any, was entirely that of manufacturer and its service centres and no liability could have been saddled on the dealer.

 

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed against O.P. No.1 is dismissed, with no order as to the cost, and it is partly allowed against the O.P. No. 2 with the directions in the following manner:-

i)       To remove the defect(s) occurred in the refrigerator in

question either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of cost, 

ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation,

iii)     To pay another sum of Rs.3000- as litigation expenses.

 

The O.P. No. 2 is further directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the said O.P. shall replace the refrigerator in question with a new one, besides payment of compensation amount and litigation expenses, as mentioned in clauses (ii) & (iii) above.

 

11.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 16.03.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

(V.K. KHANNA)                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                    MEMBER                                MEMBER.   

ma:xг*�