BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.349 of 2015

Date of Instt. 18.08.2015

Date of Decision :09.11.2015

Inderpal Singh son of Teja Singh R/o 10, New Prithavi Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Satnam Electronics and Gift Centre, Circular Road, Balmik Gate, Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory.

2. Guru Nanak Refrigerator Dakoha Road, Near Guru Ravi Gurudwara, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar through its Prop./Patner.

3. M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd, Plot No.A-40, Phase-VIII-A, Industrial Area, Mohali-160059 through its Manager/Authorized Person.

4. M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., Pirojsha Nagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai, India-400079 through its Director/MD.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RPS Bhogal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is dealer of opposite party No.3, opposite party No.2 is service centre of opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.3 is regional office of opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.4 is manufacturer of the refrigerator of Godrej brand. The opposite party No.1 deals in the various kind of electronics items at the above mentioned address and also deals with products of opposite party No.4 and the complainant purchased the refrigerator make Godrej REFGDE 26BX4 (TP) vide invoice No.2879 dated 13.2.2015 for Rs.18,000/-. At the time of purchasing the above mentioned refrigerator from the opposite party No.1, the opposite party gave assurance that the above mentioned refrigerator is under warranty for period of one year. It is a matter of ill-luck that the above mentioned refrigerator was not working properly and as such the food items kept in the refrigerator started giving bad smell as the refrigerator was not in proper working conditions as such was not cooling properly and as such gave problem to the complainant as and when he or his family member used the same. The matter was immediately reported to the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 referred the matter to opposite party No.2 who is service centre of opposite party No.4. The employees of opposite party No.2 came to the house of the complainant to check the said refrigerator but there service was not satisfactory even after a number of visits, the refrigerator did not work properly and as such the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the refrigerator because the refrigerator was under warranty but the opposite party No.1 flatly refused to replace the refrigerator inspite of number of request made by the complainant. The complainant has already made number of complaints before the service station i.e opposite party No.2 but the service station of the above mentioned company has also failed to replace or to repair the refrigerator inspite of number of requests. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.;CB alongwith copy of document Ex.C1 and closed evidence.

4. The complainant did not address any arguments. He was directed to file written arguments but did not file any written arguments. So we are deciding the present complaint after going through the record.

5. The complainant has only produced retail invoice dated 13.2.2015 Ex.C1 vide which he purchased Godrej refrigerator from opposite party No.1. According to the complainant the refrigerator did not work properly and the food items kept in it started giving bad smell as it was not in proper working order and was not cooling properly. Further according to the complainant he reported the matter to opposite party No.1 who referred him to opposite party No.2 i.e service centre of opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.2 came to his house and checked the refrigerator but did not give satisfactory service after number of visits. So in nutshell the version of the complainant is that the refrigerator purchased by him is not giving proper cooling or is not working properly. The refrigerator was purchased on 13.2.2015 vide retail invoice Ex.C1. So it is still under warranty. The warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer i.e opposite parties No.3 and 4.

6. In the above circumstance, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.3 and 4 either itself or through its service centre are directed to rectify the defect in the refrigerator of the complainant, if any free of cost as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant is directed to approach the service centre or opposite parties No.3 and 4 for this purpose. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.11.2015 Member Member President