DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

                                          PATIALA.                                              

                                             Consumer Complaint No.260 Dt.7/07/2019                                                                                                                                                      Decided on:       01/09/2020

Rahul Kumar Mittal, aged about 33 years, son of Sh. Vinod Kumar Resident of H. No.9-D, Partap Nagar, Patiala.

  …...Complainant

Versus

1.       Shivam Electro Plaza, SCO 16, Green Lehal, Passi Road, Patiala, through its Prop.

2.       Samsung India Electro Pvt. Ltd. 20-24 Floor, Horizen Centre, Golf Coast Road, Sector 43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurgaon, through its M.D./ authorized signatory.

                                                                                               ….Opposite Parties 

                                    Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the                                Consumer  Protection  Act, 1986.  

QUORUM

                                Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President                                                                                                                                                          Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member 

ARGUED BY:

                                    Sh. Jaswinder Singh Adv. counsel for complainant.                                  OP No.1 ex-parte.  

                             Sh. J. S. Sandhu Adv. counsel for OP No.2.

 ORDER

                                   JASJIT  SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT

 1.                        Rahul Kumar Mittal complainant  has filed this complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,  (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely Shivam Electro Plaza  and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).

2.                Brief facts of the case is that on 02/05/2018 complainant purchased one Samsung Refrigerator DC RR26N389ZBS/HL, Sr. No.03XX4PAK200691 from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.18750/- vide bill invoice No.178 dt.02/05/2018. Two year warranty was given to the complainant  regarding the said fridge. It is alleged that in the month of November 2018 the said fridge started giving poor cooling and over heating problem. Complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of the OPs. In the month of January 2019 OP No.1 sent service Engineer at the house of the complainant who thoroughly checked the said fridge and internal gas of the fridge was changed but inspite of that there  was no improvement in the working of the fridge and it continuously gave poor cooling and overheating problem. Again the said fridge started giving poor cooling and over heating problem. Complainant again brought this fact to the knowledge of the OPs. OP No.1 again sent service Engineer for checking of the fridge of the complainant who thoroughly checked the fridge and changed the gas  and Ice box of the fridge. After few days the same problem started again.

                   Complainant sent Emails on 7/5/2019, 17/5/2019, 18/5/2019 but to no effect. On 28/5/2019 complainant received a reply to his email mentioning there in that there is no defect in the product unit. Complainant had sent a registered legal notice dt.12/06/2019, OP has sent vague reply to the said notice.

                   With this background of facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer for direction to replace the above said defective fridge and to supply a new fridge to the complainant of the same model and price or to refund the sale price of the same to the complainant and to pay damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in service unfair trade practice along with interest @ 12 % P.A. from the date of purchase of the fridge till payment of the amount in full and final.

3.                Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of OP No.1 despite service through office peon, thus OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version. OP No.2 has taken preliminary objections that complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions there by enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of OPs by filing frivolous claim. The complainant as and when lodged the complaint with regard to Low cooling,  the said complaint has been duly attended and reported problem of low cooling was rectified by explaining the working  of the refrigerator without any charges as the product was under warranty. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is alleged that the problem of low cooling was due to Commercial usage / overloading of the refrigerator.

On merits OP No.2 has denied all the averments as alleged in the complainant. It is denied for want of knowledge that Service Engineer of the OP has gone to the house of the complainant who thoroughly checked the said fridge and internal gas of the fridge was changed.It is denied that there is alleged manufacturing defect in the fridge, but complainant has failed to produce any evidence on record in the shape of qualified expert engineer to prove that product in question has manufacturing defect. Complainant is using the fridge commercially. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4.                In support of the complaint, Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex.C-1 copy of Invoice, Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 copies of Emails dt.7/5/2019 & 17/5/2019, Ex.C-4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-5 &Ex.C-6 original Postal Receipts, Ex.C-7 Reply sent by Op No.2 and closed the evidence.

5.                Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 has also tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Anup Mathur, Director Samsung India Elect. Along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of Technical report, Ex.Op-2 copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.Op-3 list of customer code, Ex.Op-4 copy of letter dt.28/05/2019, Ex.OP-5 copy of warranty card and closed the evidence of OP No.2.

6.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

7.                 Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that admittedly the complainant had purchased one Samsung Refrigerator for a sum of Rs.18750/- from OP No.1 vide bill invoice No.178 dt.02/05/2018 having two years warranty. Ld. Counsel further argued that in the month of November 2018, the said fridge started giving poor cooling and overheating problem. Ld. Counsel further  argued that Complainant immediately brought this fact to the knowledge of the OPs. OP No.1 sent service Engineer at the house of the complainant who changed the gas of the fridge. Ld. Counsel further argued that inspite of that there  was no improvement in the working of the fridge and it continuously gave poor cooling and overheating problem. Again the complainant brought the fact  of poor cooling and overheating to the knowledge of the OPs. OP No.1 again sent service Engineer for checking of the fridge of the complainant who checked the fridge and changed the gas  and Ice box of the fridge, but the fridge is not working properly.

8.                On the other hand ld. Counsel for  OP No.2 has argued that  fridge in question has got no defect and is perfectly in good condition. Ld. Counsel further argued that the reported problem of low cooling was due to commercial use of the fridge. It is alleged that service engineer was deputed and inform that there is no defect in the refrigerator.

9.                Complainant Rahul Kumar Mittal in his affidavit Ex.CA, he has deposited as per his complaint.  He has proved the bill Ex.C-1 vide which the fridge in question was purchased on 02/05/2018 for a sum of Rs.24,000/- which include CGST  and SGST. Ex.C-2 is the Email written by the complainant to the OPs regarding the defect in the refrigerator. It is mentioned in the email that three times Engineer has changed the gas of the fridge but still the problem exists.  Ex.C-3 is the email sent by OP to the complainant regarding reviewing the complainant’s case.  Ex.C-4 is the legal notice served upon the OPs dt.12/06/2019. Ex.C-7 is the reply to the legal notice.

10.              On the other hand Ex.OPA affidavit of Anup Mathur, Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., he has deposed as per written statement. Whereby it is mentioned that fridge has no defect. Ex.OP-1 is the checking report of the refrigerator in question.  Ex.OP-2 is the reply to the legal notice filed by the counsel for the complainant. Ex.OP-5 is the warranty card of the refrigerator in question in which the warranty of the refrigerator is for 12 months.

11.              Admittedly the refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 and OP No.2 is the manufacturer. By going through all the documents, it is clear that fridge in question started giving the problem and three times the gas was changed but still there is problem. As per bill Ex.C-1 it was purchased for a sum of Rs.24,000/- on 02/05/2018. So it is clear that refrigerator was giving problem time and again, as such the complaint stands allowed. OPs are directed to refund Rs.24,000/- to the complainant the price of the refrigerator of the complainant with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of the  complaint till realization and also to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant.  Complainant is directed to return the refrigerator in question to the OPs. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 

ANNOUNCED*

Dated: 01/09/2020

                                     Vinod Kumar Gulati       Jasjit Singh Bhinder                                                                                                                                                  Member                           President