Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 528
Instituted on : 09.09.2021
Decided on : 14.06.2024
Anil Kumar, age 45 years son of late Sh. Satlok c/o A One Engineering Works, Opp. Power House, Jhajjar Road, Sheetal Nagar, Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
1. Verma Electronics, 8, Palika Bazar, Rohtak through its Prop.
2. Shivam Refrigerators, Prem Nagar Chowk, Rohtak through its Manager
3. Whirlpool India Ltd., Plot No.40, Sector-44, Gurugram through its Managing Director.
...........……Respondent/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Parmar Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Jaipal Sharma Advocate for opposite party No.3(defence struck
off vide order dated 03.04.2023).
Opposite party No.1 and 2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a refrigerator of whirlpool company from respondent no.1 on dated 10.11.2020 for Rs.23,500/-.The respondents had given the guarantee/warrantee of one year from the date of purchase with regard to refrigerator and five years guarantee for its compressor. On dated 27.05.2021, when the complainant opened the door of the fridge, he found the glass installed in the refrigerator broken whereas it was quite OK in the previous night and it had got broken of its own. Thereafter the complainant contacted the respondent no.1 with regard to the breaking of glass on its own, who advised the complainant to contact the respondent no.2 who is the authorized service centre of respondent no.3. Accordingly the complainant lodged a complaint with respondent no.2, who initially had assured that the broken glass will be replaced with a new one as the refrigerator was within guarantee period by that time and he asked the complainant to wait for some time as he was not having the said glass with him and the same shall be made available after placing the order to respondent no.3. It was further assured that the complainant will be informed whenever the glass will become available. Since then the complainant is regularly approaching the respondent no.2 and 3, but the matter is being lingered on by the opposite parties under one pretext or the other and now respondents have refused to replace the glass of refrigerator, despite his repeated requests. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the broken glass of the refrigerator of complainant which is within warranty period, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no.1 & 2 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 2 and as such opposite party No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.11.2022 of this Commission.. Opposite party no.3 appeared but failed to file reply despite availing sufficient opportunities. As such defence of opposite party no.3 was struck off vide order dated 03.04.2023 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 on 05.09.2023, also tendered documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C9 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on 04.06.2024.
4. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, as per the bill Ex.C1 the complainant had purchased a refrigerator on 10.11.2020 from the opposite party No.1, which is having guarantee/warranty of one year with regard to refrigerator and five years guarantee for its compressor. As per complainant on 27.05.2021 when he opened the door of refrigerator, he found that the glass of the refrigerator was broken on its own. He contacted the opposite parties to replace the same within warranty period but the same is not replaced by them despite his repeated requests. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record photographs Ex.C4 to Ex.C9, which shows that glass has been broken. On the other hand, there is no allegation of the opposite parties that there was any mishandling, misuse or violation of any instructions of use by the complainant. It is also observed that opposite party No.3 appeared before this Commission but even failed to file reply despite availing sufficient opportunities. Opposite party No.1 & 2 were also proceeded against exparte despite service. As such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. As the product was within guarantee/warranty period, hence the opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer is liable to replace the glass.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to replace the broken glass of the refrigerator of the complainant and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.06.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
