DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 310

 Instituted on:   23.09.2020 

                                                                         Decided on:     01.04.2024

Tejinderpal son of Bhagirath Lal resident of  #306, Indra Basti, Ram Nagar, Ward No.3, Sunam, District Sangrur.          

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     The Delight Radios, through its Owner/ Prorietor Naya Bazar, Sunam-148028.

2.     L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Limited through its Managing Director, Surajpur Kasna Road, Plot 51, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201306.

….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For complainant        : Shri Vinay Kumar Jindal, Adv.             

For Op no.1             : Exparte

For OP no.2              : Shri Kuldeep Kumar Jain, Adv.

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1.             The complainant has alleged  in this complaint that  the complainant  is a consumer qua the Ops.  On 08.01.2019 the complainant  purchased L.G refrigerator Model Frost U, GL-C-372RPZU 709PRFG063259 from OP no.1 vide bill no. 845  and paid  cash payment  of Rs.38000/- to the OP no.1. The OP no.1 gave guarantee of the refrigerator  to the complainant for ten years. After some time, the above said refrigerator started problems like as stopped to produce proper cooling  and also stopped to make ice and making a loud  noise in the compressor. The complainant lodged a complaint to OP no.2 through OP no.1 on 08.05.2019 and 17.06.2019 but the OPs neither sought out the defects of the refrigerator nor gave any response. On 21.06.2019, the officials of the OPs visited the house of  the complainant and checked the refrigerator and found that the compressor was not working and OPs replaced the compressor on 21.06.2019. After the replacement of the compressor the refrigerator again stopped to produce cooling.  The milk, vegetables etc. are spoiling due to stoppage of cooling in the refrigerator and is still in dead condition. On 24.08.2020 the  complainant got inspected the  refrigerator from qualified expert. The expert found that there is manufacturing defect in the compressor of refrigerator which is not repairable.  The complainant issued a legal notice dated 29.05.2020  to OPs but the OPs did not send any reply. The complainant and his family members are facing mental and physical harassment in summer days. The complainant  has purchased  new refrigerator to void difficulties. As such the Ops have committed deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice qua the complainant and lastly prayed that the Ops  may kindly directed to refund of Rs.38000/-  alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- as  litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, despite service OP no.1 intentionally did not appear to contest the case  and  was proceeded against exparte vide separate order dated 20.07.2021. The OP no.2  appeared and filed written version taking legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. On merits, the Op no.2 received first  complaint on 17.06.2019 which was resolved through job sheet no.RNP190617072717 and compressor of the refrigerator of complainant was replaced on 21.06.2019 by  technician to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The  complainant signed the same being fully satisfied with the service of OP no.2. Neither prior to 17.06.2019 nor after the same, any complaint was ever lodged or received by the OP no.2. Due to out-spread pandemic covid-19 there was complete lockdown at the alleged time of issuing the legal notice and the offices of OP no.2  were completely shutdown and employees were working from homes. So no legal notice was ever received. The product can be examined by the engineers of OP no.2 so the alleged report can not be relied upon. The OP no.2 is not negligent   and deficient in rendering services to the complainant. The remaining allegations are denied by the Op no.2 and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with special costs.

3.             In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his self attested  affidavit Ex.C-1 and some documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 and closed evidence.

4.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party no.2 has produced   Ex.Op2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for  parties and gone through the record file carefully  with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

6.             Now, come to major controversy,  whether the complainant is liable for relief  as claimed by him in his prayer or  not?

7.             During arguments learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant purchased a refrigerator from  OP no.1 on 08.01.2019 for an amount of Rs.38,000/-  vide bill  which is Ex.C-2. He further  stated that the OP changed the compressor of the refrigerator on 21.06.2019 which was admitted by the OP no.2 in its reply. On 29.05.2020 complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs but no reply was filed by the OPs. Expert report prepared by qualified technician regarding no gas produced by refrigerator  and lastly prayed by complainant to refund the price of the refrigerator.

On the other hand,  learned counsel for the OP no.2 strongly opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. The averment of the OP no.2 regarding purchase of the refrigerator by the complainant is admitted by OP.  The compressor changed by OPs is also admitted. As per company record only one complaint lodged by the complainant after that complainant has not lodged any complaint. Learned counsel for OP no.2 has argued that there is no defect in the product in question.

Rebuttal arguments by learned counsel for complainant stated that when the compressor changed once no need  to approach to the OP by the complainant. The company is also liable towards the act of agent. Expert report is unrebutted by OPs.  

8.             It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased L.G refrigerator Model Frost U, GL-C-372RPZU 709PRFG063259 from OP no.1 vide bill no. 845  and paid  cash payment  of Rs.38000/- to the OP no.1. As per Ex.C-3 the warranty condition of the product mentioned as one  year and nine years additional warranty of the compressor from the date of purchase of the product i.e. 08.01.2019. It is further mentioned on the warranty card that the warranty card bears the rubber stamp, date and signatures of the authorized dealer. From the perusal of Ex.C-3 the customer name mentioned as Tejinderpal on the left side from the bottom  of the warranty card. Similarly OP no.1 put his signatures  and he bears the rubber stamp on the right  side from bottom. In this juncture, the OP no.1 is authorized dealer of OP no.2. From the perusal of Ex.C-2  invoice of the  product in question duly issued by OP no.1  and he put his signature being authorized signatory. To prove his case, the complainant has produced some documents and himself has tendered into evidence self attested affidavit on oath which is Ex.C-1. The complainant has produced on record expert report of qualified mechanic (refrigeration and Air conditioning). It is writ large on the fie that  the mechanic has passed ITI Trade/ Course in the relevant field from Government Industrial Training Institute, Bhikhi Road, Budhlada, District Mansa.  In expert report, he found that there is manufacturing defect in the compressor  of the refrigerator which is not repairable. The refrigerator also  stopped to produce gas and now the refrigerator  is not working  and is in dead condition. It transpires from the perusal of Ex.C-8 self attested affidavit of qualified mechanic stated on oath in his evidence the same version which he stated in his expert report.

9.             Per contra, as per Ex.OP2/1, the OP no.2 examined  Shri Rishavh Kumar Jain, Service Manager, in his evidence to prove his stand. In para no.2 of the affidavit ( supra) the OP no.2 admitted that  first complaint lodged on 17.06.2019 by complainant which was resolved through job sheet no. RNP190617072717 and  the compressor of the the refrigerator was replaced on 21.06.2019. “A man can lie, but document can’t”.

We feel that the OP no.2 admitted this factum that the compressor of the refrigerator  was changed on 21.06.2019. It means that compressor of the refrigerator was changed after five months and thirteen days from the date of purchase the product in question i.e. on 08.01.2019. The OP no.2 further pleaded that neither prior to 17.06.2019 nor after the same any complaint was ever lodged to OP no.2 by the complainant. From the perusal of pleadings in para no.3 (b) page no.4 the complainant specifically pleaded that the complainant  purchased a new refrigerator to avoid difficulties. Further,  from the perusal of Ex.C-11 the OP no.1 issued in his letter pad to the complainant regarding the complaint no. 190617072717 on 08.05.2020 and he  also embosses the stamp and put his signature on the same  being authorized dealer of OP no.2.  In this context, we feel that OP no.2 never denied this factum  that the OP no.1 is not his authorized dealer qua the OP no.2. The stand of OP no.2 with regard to complainant not approached to OP no.2 after 17.06.2019 as  per para no.2 of affidavit Ex.OP2/1 is falsified. The product in question  can be examined only by the engineers of OP no.2. This Commission has the considered view that neither the OP no.2 challenged the authenticity of expert report nor rebutted the expert report of mechanic which is Ex.C-7. From this angle, we feel that OP no.2 admitted this factum in his pleading and affidavit on oath that the compressor has already been changed on 21.06.2019. Admission is best evidence so no need to prove it. This Commission has  the considered opinion that in the absence of material, reliable, trustworthy cogent rebuttal evidence by OP no.2 regarding there is no manufacturing defect is in existence in the refrigerator  has not been proved. In this peculiar situation and circumstances of the case the stand of the complainant is believable. This is a fit case to redress the grievance of the complainant. As such we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has spent Rs.38,000/- vide  invoice  which is Ex.C-2 to purchase a new brand refrigerator  from   OPs but he is unable to utilize  the same within five month and thirteen days from the date of purchase i.e. 08.01.2019.      

10.           Resultantly, keeping  in view of the  facts and  circumstances  of the  complaint  in hand  and with  careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record, we partly  allow  the complaint  and direct  the OP no.2 to refund Rs.38,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is directed to handover the defective refrigerator in question to OP no.2 whenever OP no.2 approaches the complainant  and OP no.2 gave a proper receiving receipt to the complainant that OP no.2 received the refrigerator in question  and  further OP no.2  shall pay to the complainant a consolidated sum of Rs.7000/- as  compensation and litigation  expenses. This order be complied with by OP no.2 within 45 days  from the  receipt of copy  of this order.    

11.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance

                Announced.                          

                April 1, 2024

( Kanwaljeet Singh)            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                                      President

BBS/-