Haryana

Jind

159/2014

Naresh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ram Furniture - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 159 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 27.11.2014
   Date of final order: 21.7.2016
Naresh aged 24 years s/o Sh. Hari Chand r/o village Bhag Khera, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Shree Ram Furniture & Electronics house, Kalwa road, near Verma Tent House, Pillu Khera Mandi (Jind).
Bhavesh Marketing near bus stand, Shiv Colony, Jind manufacture company & Service Centre of refrigerator of Electrolux Company. 
P.E. Electronics Ltd. Faridabad branch office, 5-C, 2nd floor above IDBI Bank, BP NIT Fardabad, 121001 (HRY).

                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Naresh complainant in person.
          Sh. K.C. Kashyap Adv. for opposite party No.1    
              Sh. Parmod Mittal Adv. for OP No.3
              Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased a Refrigerator of Electrolux Model No. EDP244KH-FDS for a sum of Rs.15,500/- vide bill No.779 dated 28.3.2014 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre. The above said
            Naresh v/s Shree Ram Furniture etc.
                     …..2…….
 refrigerator was having manufacturing defect as it gives electric current and did not work properly. The problem of electric current to the refrigerator is since the date of its purchase.  The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and  requested to remove the defect of the refrigerator. The opposite party No.1 approached the opposite party No.2 for its repairing but in lieu of repairing its current they again imperfectly joint the electric point and hence the electric problem to the refrigerator of complainant is yet running. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 several times and requested to remove the defect of the refrigerator but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.   Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the above said refrigerator as well as to  a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that the answering opposite party is only dealer and not responsible for removing the defect of the refrigerator. It is further alleged that  opposite party No.2 and 3 are responsible for removing the defects of the refrigerator in question. Therefore, there 

            Naresh v/s Shree Ram Furniture etc.
                     …..3…….
is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite party No.3 has contended that the technician of the company has visited the house of the complainant and checked the refrigerator and found that the refrigerator is  working O.K and no fault was found in the refrigerator. The complainant has not enclosed any technical report  regarding fault in refrigerator which shows that the refrigerator has any kind of manufacturing defect. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for.             
4.     In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of cash memo Ex.C-2 and copy of complaint number Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, opposite party No.2  ex-party vide order dated 22.9.2015 and the opposite party No.1&3 has not tendered any evidence and as such the evidence of opposite party No.1&3 were closed by court order on 17.5.2016.
5.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of all the parties and perused the record placed of file. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the refrigerator is not working properly as there is a problem of electric current in the refrigerator in question from the very beginning. The matter was also reported to the service centre of the opposite party-company but the technician of the company did not remove the inherent defect and refrigerator is having  manufacturing defect and company is responsible to remove the same. He further argued that the Company  has not removed the defect of the
            Naresh v/s Shree Ram Furniture etc.
                     …..4…….
 refrigerator  and  refrigerator is not working and lying in dead condition. 
6.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that 
  the technician of the company the company has checked the refrigerator of the complainant and found that the refrigerator in question is working properly and there is no defect. As and when any complaint was received the same was promptly attended by the opposite party-company to the satisfaction of the complainant. There is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and prayed for dismissal of complaint.   
7.    The forth most question arises before us whether the refrigerator is having manufacturing defect or not? It is not disputed that the refrigerator in question is under warranty and company is liable to rectify the defect from the refrigerator or to replace the same if refrigerator having some manufacturing defect.  From the perusal of document Ex. C-3 it reveals that the complainant had made first complaint on 10 July, 2014 and thereafter  he continuously made 7 complaints with the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect from the refrigerator in question. The version of the opposite party-company is that the refrigerator is working properly at the spot  is not believable because the opposite party-company has failed to file any affidavit of the technician who has checked the refrigerator in question. Besides this the opposite party-company also failed to file any document/job sheet to ascertain that the refrigerator is working properly. Mere to say that the refrigerator is working 
            Naresh v/s Shree Ram Furniture etc.
                     …..5…….
properly is not tenable in the eyes of law,  it should be supported with cogent evidence. 
8.    Hence, in view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that the refrigerator in question having some inherent defect and the complainant made several complaints with the opposite party-company but the opposite party-company has failed to rectify the defect and as such  there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the refrigerator with new one of the same model or refund the cost of the refrigerator amounting to Rs.15,500/- within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order. In case of failure, the opposite parties will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 27.11.2014 till its realization. The opposite parties will also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The order be compliance within the stipulated period. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on:   21.7.2016
                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels of all the parties and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone for a sum of Rs.9,500/- on 8.5.2014(Ex. C-1) and the 
            Anil Vs. Vishal Communication etc.
                    …4…
same has started giving trouble from the very beginning. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the mobile set started switch off when the sim card was inserted in it and without sim card the mobile remained switch on. 
7.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1has argued that the mobile set was selected by the complainant at his own choice and same was sold by the answering opposite party in sealed and packed condition and there was no fault on the part of the answering opposite party. 
8.    We have gone through the cash memo Ex. C-1 as well as copies   of job sheet Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3 and also gone through the affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-4 it is very much clear from the perusal of the jobs sheet dated 18.10.2014 and 18.11.2015 i.e.   Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3 respectively that there was “ power does not switch on” problem in mobile. Beside this the complainant has filed this complaint within warranty period and mobile in question having one warranty. On the other hand, the respondents have not filed any document that the mobile in question having no problem. The opposite parties also failed to file the affidavit of the Engineer who had removed the defects of the mobile of the complainant at the time of job sheet. It is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is allowed in the interest of jusitce and opposite parties No.2 and 3  are directed  to replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one of same model  having same price and if the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile with interest@9% p.a. 
            Anil Vs. Vishal Communication etc.
                    …5…
from the date of order.  Order be complianced within one month from the date of order.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 6.5.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

            Naresh v/s Shree Ram Furniture etc.
                   
                    
Present:  Sh. Naresh complainant in person.
          Sh. K.C. Kashyap Adv. for opposite party No.1    
              Sh. Parmod Mittal Adv. for OP No.3
              Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 

             Arguments heard. To come up on 21.7.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member                Member      DCDRF, Jind
                                 21.7.2016

Present:  Sh. Naresh complainant in person.
          Sh. K.C. Kashyap Adv. for opposite party No.1    
              Sh. Parmod Mittal Adv. for OP No.3
              Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
         
         Order announced, vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                         President,
        Member                Member      DCDRF, Jind
                                 21.7.2016