Date of Filing: 03.01.2019
Date of Judgment: 19.05.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant Mona Verma under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite Parties (referred as Ops hereafter) namely 1. Manager Reliance Retails Ltd and 2. The Branch Manager M/S Johnson Control, Hitachi Air Condition India Ltd, allaging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that on 28.05.2018 she purchased a Hitachi Refrigerator of FF 60 ILR VG660PND 3 from the Op no 1 on payment of price of Rs 67,517.04P and the same was delivered on 15.06.2018 and installed on 29.06.2018. However no service installation report was provided to the Complainant. At the time of installation three dents were found in the back side of the Refrigerator. After some days of the installation, The Complainant found frost in the Refrigerator and condensed droplet in the Refrigerator section and the vegetable and other trays were full of water and intermittently the water came out on the floor. On being complained to the O.P no 1 the service engineer attended and changed the temperature setting on 21.07.2018. But again the same problem arose and even though the Service Engineer on being complained attended on 08.08.2018 but could not rectify the defects. The O.P no 1 had sold a defective Refrigerator and thus The Complainant has filed the present complaint praying for directing the Opposite Party to replace the Refrigerator with a new one with further Warranty in alternate to direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount with interest after taking the Refrigerator, to pay the compensation of Rs 20,000/- for harassment and to pay litigation cost of Rs 10,000/-.
The O.P no 1 is contesting the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations contending inter-alia that the staircase of the house of the Complainant is narrow and as such the delivery team was unable to deliver the said Refrigerator in the room of the Complainant. However with the help of the additional staffs, the product was delivered. On finding the three dents on the backside of the Refrigerator, after taking the approval of the O.P no 2, O.P no 1 offered to replace the said Refrigerator with a new one smaller size model but the Complainant did not agree and on mutual discussion, ultimately the Complainant agreed to keep the same Refrigerator. On receipt of the complain regarding frost and condensed droplet in the Refrigerator section, the service Engineer attended the Complainant’s house on 21.07.2018 and found the temperature setting is not in proper manner. So the Mechanics changed the temperature and the Refrigerator thereafter worked properly. The Complainant again made a complaint on 25.07.2018 of same problem of frost and condensed droplet. So the service Engineer of O.P no 1 and also of O.P no 2 jointly visited the house of the complainant on 07.08.2018 and 08.08.2018 to check the machine of the said Refrigerator but on thorough inspection, they did not find any problem with the said Refrigerator. However they adjusted the front and the rear door of the Refrigerator as precautionary measure. The Complainant thereafter through a letter dated 16.08.2018 asked for replacement but after visit, the technicians found that there was no problem with the said Refrigerator. The visiting Engineer found that the Complainant mistakenly blocked the air vent through which the cold air flows inside the Refrigerator and the same was informed to the Complainant. Since the Complainant had agreed not to replace the said product with a new one smaller size, the replacement process was closed by an email dated 28.06.2018 with the consent of the Complainant. Thus there has been no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service and as such the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
The O.P no 2 has also contested the case by filing the written-version contending inter-alia that the product Refrigerator has warranty of one year and compressor carries a warranty of ten years. O.P no 2 is not aware about any conversation between the Complainant and the O.P no 1. The O.P no 2 is well supported by the service centre having excellent set up after sales servicing of its product which is manned by qualified personnel. It is further contended by the O.P no 2 that this complaint relates to defect of goods which can only be determined with proper analysis or test of goods. No such report is filed and thus the O.P no 2 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the case of trial, both parties filed their respective affidavit-in-chiefs followed by filing of questionnaires and reply thereto and ultimately arguments has been heard. Both parties have filed brief notes of argument.
So following points require determination :-
- Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons
Both points are taken up for a comprehensive discussions in order to avoid repetation.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Hitachi Refrigerator REF FF 601LRVG 660PND3 on 28.05.2018 from O.P no 1 on payment of Rs 67,517/-. Even though the Complainant stated in the Complaint, price as Rs 84,517.13/- initially but the same appeared to be a bonafide mistake. This is also an admitted fact that on delivery of the Refrigerator at the Complainant’s house three dents were found in the backside of the Refrigerator and according to The O.P no 1 that after taking approval from the O.P no 2, O.P no 1 on or about 26.06.2018 offered to replace the said Refrigerator with a new one of smaller size but the Complainant did not agree to the same and thus the O.P no 1 closed the replacement process after mutual discussion with the Complainant.
The Complainant has filed the duplicate transport copy dated 15.06.2018 wherefrom it appears that 3 dents on the backside of the Fridge were found but it is no where mentioned that the dents occurred due to transport of the refrigerator to the Complainant’s house or that due to staircase of the Complainant’s house being narrow as claimed by the O.P no1. So it indicates that the refrigerator was a damaged one. Nowhere in the said document it is mentioned that the staircase is narrow to carry the product to the Complainant’s house. It is true, as it appears from the E-mail sent by the O.P no 1 regarding closure of replacement process and the Complainant replied “ok” but the Complainant has categorically stated that she was told by the OP’s service personnel that the Refrigerator will not have any problem due to dent or otherwise but after few days she found frost in the Refrigerator and condense droplet in the Refrigerator section and the vegetable tray full of water. The Job sheet dated 21.07.2018 of the O.P no 1 also supports the claim of the Complainant as it finds reflection therein. It is specifically mentioned in the job sheet by the Service Engineer that frost in the Refrigerator section and water droplet in the Refrigerator section. So such problem was there is not denied by the O.P no 1. However according to the O.P, temperature setting was not proper so proper temperature setting was done and then it worked properly. But that was not correct. The job sheet of dated 08.08.2018 reveals that the Service Engineer of the O.Ps again visited the Complainant’s house on receiving the same complain of frost and water droplet. However the O.P has contended that the said problem arose because the Complainant had mistakenly blocked the air vent through which the cold air flows inside the Refrigerator causing inside temperature uneven. But in this context it may be pertinent to point out that the O.Ps have not filed any document that on inspection they found that the Complainant had blocked the air vent and they informed about it to the Complainant. Nowhere in the job sheet also it is mentioned that they found the air vent blocked which caused the temperature uneven. On the contrary the job sheet dated 08.08.2018 indicates they adjusted the front door and the rear door of the Fridge. If according to the O.Ps there was no problem in the Refrigerator than there was no reason to adjust the door even for precautionary measure. So the contention of the O.P that frost and water droplet in the Refrigerator section was due to the Complainant blocking the air vent is nothing but an afterthought and subsequent development. The repeated complain by the Complainant within short intervals suggest that the Refrigerator was not free from defect. Admittedly there were three dents on backside of the Refrigerator for which O.P. No. 1 with the approval of the O.P 2 had agreed to replace the Refrigerator. If that be so, we find no reason for the O.Ps not to replace the Refrigerator especially when the complain of the Complainant on each time was found to be correct on inspection by the Service Engineer of the O.Ps .
For the reason as highlighted above, we find that the Complainant is entitled to the replacement of the Refrigerator in question with new one with further warranty of one year.
Hence
Ordered
CC/4/2019 is allowed on contest.
Opposite parties are directed to replace the Refrigerator with a new one of same model within two months from this date with warranty of one year. O.P no 1 is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs 10000/- within the aforesaid period of two months.
