This is a complaint filed u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
The case in brief is that, the Complainant purchased a Voltas 320 ltr. Chest Freezer (SD) 005359 from Giriraj Agency, Nutanganj Rashtola, Bankura (The O.P. no.1) with consideration of Rs.19,700/- and from the beginning the cooling system of the Freezer was not working properly.
The matter has been informed to O.P.no.1 several times but they did not pay any heed. Finally the Freezer became out of order since 08-04-2016 and the Complainant sent written complaint to O.P.no.1 on 25-04-2016 through Registered Post yet the O.P. no.1 did not take any positive measure towards the complaint. Again the Complainant informed the matter to O.P. no.1 and to office in-charge, Voltas Ltd., Voltas House “A” Block, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai – 400033 (The O.P. no.2) on 21-06-2016. But till now there is no positive response on the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps. have supplied a defected Freezer to the Complainant and thus cheated the Complainant. Hence this case.
The Complainant prayed for direction upon the O.P. to exchange the defective freezer with a new one or refund the value of the freezer and to pay Rs.10,000/- for the harassment of the Complainant.
The O.P. no.1 contested the case by filing written version, contending inter alia that the Complainant purposefully suppressed some materials facts that under what circumstances the
Complainant did not allow the official/technical staff of the customer care service for removal of complaint. The O.P. categorically denies all the allegations made by the Complainant in his petition of complaint. The O.P. stated that at the time of purchasing the said freeze one brochure of warranty has been issued to him subject to fulfillment of its operations in the manner enshrined therein and no guarantee has been given at all. The O.P. again stated that after receiving the complaint (1)16041516365, (2)16061141034 and (3)160661111 the technical staff of the O.P. visited the house of the Complainant but the complainant did not allow him to check the freeze rather pressed for replacement of the freeze. The O.P. also stated that the allegation of the Complainant of defective freeze has to prove by way of producing expert opinion and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In the instant case notice upon O.P. No.2 has been served properly and O.P. No.2 has received the same with proper endorsement on the A/D card but none appeared on the part of O.P. No.2 to contest with the case. So, the case has been heard ex-parte against O.P. No.2. Neither Complainant nor O.P. No.1 files written argument. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.1.
There is no dispute regarding the purchasing of the freeze by the Complainant. There is no dispute also regarding the jurisdiction to entertain the case. Now the points we have to consider are :-
Points for Determination.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons.
Points (i) & (ii) – Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
At the time of argument the Complainant filed original Tax Invoice of purchasing the freeze, warranty card and two written complaint along with postal receipt and postal track report.
It is clear from the Tax Invoice No.- SGA/1820/15-16 dt. 26-02-2016 and the warranty card that the Complainant purchased Voltas 320 ltr. Chest Freezer from Giriraj Agency, Nutanganj, Rashtala, Bankura i.e. from O.P. No.1 with one year warranty.
The copy of letter dt. 25-04-2016 along with postal receipt shows that the Complainant informed the O.P. No.1 that his Freeze has been out of order from 08-04-2016.
The copies of letters dt. 21-06-2016 along with postal receipts shows that the Complainant again informed the matter to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 also. From the postal track report it is clear that the above mentioned letter has been delivered to O.P. No.2 on 24-06-2016. So, the documents filed by the Complainant reveals that the Complainant informed both O.P. No.1 and O.P.
No.2 that his freeze has been out of order since 08-04-2016. As per the Complainant the O.Ps.did not take any effective measure till today.
In this regard the O.P. No.1 stated that after receiving the complaint the technical staff of the O.Ps. visited the house of the Complainant but the Complainant did not allow him to check the freeze. But the O.P. No.1 did not produce any document in support of his statement. Moreover, the Complainant has requested the O.Ps. to repair his freeze in those complaint. So, the pleading of O.P. No.1 that the Complainant did not allow their technical staff to check the freeze is not tenable at all.
The allegation of the Complainant is that the O.Ps. supplied a defective freeze to him as the cooling system of the freeze was not working properly from the beginning and lastly became out of order on and from 08-04-2016.
The O.P. No.1 controverted that such allegation has to be proved by ex-part opinion. In this regard, the Complainant stated in his petition of Complaint that the cooling system of the freeze was not working properly from the beginning and finally became out of order on and from 08-04-2016 i.e. within two months from the date of purchasing and accordingly informed the O.Ps. several times. The O.P. No.1 also admitted that they have received the complaint from the Complainant. So, from the above fact and circumstances it can be presumed that the freezer has manufacturing defect from the beginning.
Therefore, from the above discussion it is clear that after receiving the complaint from the Complainant the O.Ps. did not take any effective measure to repair the freeze. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The Complainant prayed for replacement of the freezer with a new one or refunds the cost of the freezer. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision taken by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi cited in 2009, CTJ 180(CP)(SCDRC) Delhi as “in a dispute of defective goods cost of such goods be refunded to the end of the dispute. Replacement of goods is not a solution as such goods may not be upto the satisfaction of consumer.” Hence we have decided that the purchase value of the freezer be refunded to the Complainant for the ends of justices. So, the case stands in favour of the Complainant. Hence it is
Ordered
That C.C. No.45/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No.1 and ex-parte against O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 are severally or jointly directed to refund the cost of freezer i.e. Rs.19,700/- to the Complainant along with the interest @10% per annum from the date of filing this
case i.e. from 08-07-2016 till the realization of the amount. The O.Ps. are also directed to pay Rs.3000/-as litigation cost to the Complainant.
All such payment shall be made within one month from the date of this order failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order as per law and procedure.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.
