BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:123 of 2016
Date of Institution: 15.06.2016
Date of Decision:14.03.2017
Rajender Aggarwal aged about 48 years son of Shri Shyamsunder Aggarwal Advocate, resident of 56, Park Colony, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector-81, Phase-2, Noida-201305 U.P. (India) through Managing Director.
- Vijay Electronics, Radhika Complex, Front of K.M. Public School, Hansi Road, Bhiwani through Proprietor/Owner/Partner.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant on dated 12.04.2016 had purchased Freeze model No. RR23K2742RZ/NL from OP no. 2 vide invoice/cash memo No. 28609 amounting to Rs. 18500/- It is alleged that immediately after the purchase of the said Freeze, the complainant found that it is not giving cooling and the complainant made complaint on the same day to the OP no. 2. It is alleged that the OP no. 2 on 14.04.2016 replaced the said Freeze of the complainant with the another model of the Freeze and also issued bill dated 14.04.2016 after getting Rs. 100/- as a difference of the cost of the said Freeze and the said Freeze carrying guarantee of 10 years. It is alleged that this Freeze also not working properly. Hence, the complainant made complaints to the OP no. 2. Despite repeated complaints the Ops could not rectify the defect in the Freeze. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the complaint of the complainant against the answering respondent is accordingly liable to be rejected on this ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction alone. It is submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for Ops.
5. The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that he had purchased the Freeze from OP no. 2 vide bill dated 12.04.2016 Annexure C-1 for Rs. 18,500/-. Immediately after the purchase of the said Freeze, the complainant found that it is not giving cooling and the complainant made complaint on the same day to the OP no. 2. The OP no. 2 on 14.04.2016 replaced the said Freeze of the complainant with the another model of the Freeze and also issued bill dated 14.04.2016 Annexure C-2 after getting Rs. 100/- as a difference of the cost of the said Freeze. The said Freeze carrying guarantee of 10 years. This Freeze also not working properly. Hence, the complainant made complaints to the OP no. 2. Despite repeated complaints the Ops could not rectify the defect in the Freeze.
6. The Counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that as and when the complaint was received, the engineers of the company was deputed to rectify the defects in the Freeze of the complainant and the Freeze is working properly. The warranty of the Freeze is subject to terms and conditions of the warranty card. The complaint of the complainant is false and baseless.
7. We have perused the record carefully. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Freeze of a particular model mentioned in bill dated 12.04.2016 Annexure C-1 for Rs. 18,500/- and after 2 days of the purchase of the said Freeze the OP replaced the said Freeze with some other model vide bill dated 14.04.2016 Annexure C-2 and also charged Rs. 100/- being the difference of the cost of the Freeze. The complainant has contended that the second Freeze is also not giving proper cooling and the Ops could not rectify the defects despite repeated complaints made by him on various dates to Ops. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 15.06.2016 within 2 months approximately from the date of purchase of the Freeze in question. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to replace the Freeze in question of the complainant with new one with the model as mentioned in bill dated 12.04.2016 and also to refund Rs. 100/- to the complainant. The complainant is directed to approach the Ops for the replacement of his Freeze within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and thereafter the Ops are directed to comply with this order immediately. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 14.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
