Punjab

Sangrur

CC/261/2015

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ganesh Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kulvir Singh Sunam

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    261

                                                Instituted on:      04.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       07.09.2015

 

 

 

 

Avtar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of Near Saheed Udham Singh Dharamshala, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Shree Ganesh Enterprises, Naya Bazar, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, through its Proprietor/partner.

2.             Godrej Industries Limited, Plot 4A, Near Godrej Memorial Hospital, Pirojshanagar LBS Marg, Vikhroli, West Mumbai -400 079 through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Kulvir Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri R.K. Khipla, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Avtar Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one  Godrej refrigerator (221) litres from OP number 1 on 14.4.2012 vide bill number 4645 for Rs.14,000/- and at the time of its purchase, the OP number 1 had given the warranty of the compressor for five years in respect of the said refrigerator. It is further stated that after 2/3 months of the purchase of refrigerator, it stopped freezing ice in the ice box and also not giving proper cooling.  The complainant approached the OP number 1 and thereafter on the complaint of the complainant, the OP deputed one mechanic who visited the spot and after checking the same repaired the refrigerator. It is further averred that in the month of June, 2014, the refrigerator again gave the same problem and stopped working properly and the complainant approached OP number 1, who gave the customer care number, Mumbai and as such the complainant lodged the complaint.  It is further averred that after some days from the date of the said complaint, the mechanic of the OP number 1 visited the premises of the complainant and told that the refrigerator was not in the working condition, as the same is due to some manufacturing defect, but thereafter nothing happened. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 24.7.2014 upon the OPs, but the OPs did not repair the refrigerator or replaced the same with a new one.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the full amount of the refrigerator along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 14.4.2012 and at the time of sale of the refrigerator, it was disclosed to the complainant that the matter regarding guarantee/warranty of the product is at the company end and as per the policy of the company.  It is admitted that the complainant had approached OP number 1 with his complaint of fault in the refrigerator.  It is denied that the mechanic of the OP number 1 ever visited the house of the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not arrayed the service centre as a party, that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is false, frivolous and vexatious one.   On merits, it has been denied for want of knowledge whether the complainant had purchased the Godrej refrigerator from OP number 1 on 14.4.2012 vide bill number 4645 for an amount of Rs.14,000/-. It has also been denied that the OP number 1 gave a warranty of the refrigerator for five years.  It has been further denied that after 2/3 months from the date of its purchase, the said refrigerator stopped freezing ice and was also not giving proper cooling. Further the OP number 2 has admitted that on 14.6.2014  complaint was received from the complainant against the refrigerator and the OP number 2 immediately reported the matter to the authorised service centre, then a complaint was registered, who deputed an experienced technician to look into the matter. On 14.6.2014, Shri Charanjit Singh approached the complainant and found that the compressor and freezer punctured and the complainant was told that the service charges and repair shall be applicable to the amount of Rs.2700/-, but the complainant refused to get the refrigerator repaired.  Further on 24.6.2014, the mechanic of the OP again visited to the premises of the complainant and found that the complainant has got opened the refrigerator in question from an unauthorised mechanic.  It is stated further that the legal notice of the complainant was duly replied and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex. C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of expert report, Ex.C-5 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 postal receipts, Ex.C-8 copy of legal notice and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of authority letter, Ex.Op2/3 copy of job card, Ex.OP2/4 copy of history and closed evidence.  

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

6.               Ex.C-3 is a copy of the bill dated 14.04.2012 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the refrigerator in question for Rs.14,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question and availed the services of the OP number 1 and 2. It is also admitted fact of  OP number 1 that the complainant approached him and complained about the defect in the refrigerator.   The complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention that the refrigerator is defective one and the defects arose within the guarantee period. Further Ex.C-5 is the copy of legal notice served by the learned counsel for the complainant upon the OPs. The complainant has also produced on record the copy of the expert report submitted by Shri Jasvir Singh of Gurmeet Refrigeration Works, Naya Bazar, Sunam, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, which clearly reveals that the compressor of the refrigerator is defective one.   On the other hand, the OPs have only produced their sworn affidavits Ex.OP/1 and Ex.OP2/1 apart from the copy of job sheet dated 246.2014 which shows that the mechanic of the company visited the premises of the complainant and found that the compressor and freezer of the refrigerator were punctured meaning thereby there was no cooling in the refrigerator in question at the time of checking of the same by the mechanic of the OPs, which means if there was no cooling then it cannot be said to be a refrigerator rather can be said to be an almirah.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they demanded an amount of Rs.2700/- from the complainant and further why they did not make the refrigerator functional, as the compressor of the refrigerator in question was within the warranty period of five years. Moreover, the Ops have not produced on record any expert report of the expert to show that there was no defect in the refrigerator.  In the circumstances of the case,  we feel that it is a case of supply of defective refrigerator to the complainant and the  defects of cooling developed within a very short period of its purchase.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2500/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 7, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member