BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.180 of 2014
Date of Institution : 22.12.2014
Date of Decision : 23.11.2016.
Rohit & Mohit Guleria sons of Dr. R.P. Singh through Dr. Bhagirath Guleria, Grand father of minors (Rohit & Mohit) being beneficiary resident of Surkhab Chowk, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Videocon India Ltd., Plot No.296, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Gurgaon through its Managing Director (Manufacturer of refrigerator).
2. J.P. Brothers, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa (Dealer).
3. General Manager (Sales) Plot No.26, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Gurgaon.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Jagwant Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
Case of complainants in brief, is that they had purchased one Videocon refrigerator from op no.2 on 25.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.33,000/- vide bill dated 25.11.2011. After sometime of its purchase, the said refrigerator started giving less cooling as well as other problems and on inspection it was found that there were cracks inside the body of the freezer and therefore, ops were requested to refund the cost of refrigerator. After repeated requests and visits, the ops’ Engineers visited the premises of the complainants and after inspection, they stated that refrigerator is having manufacturing defect and also having several cracks and after long wait the manufacturing company and dealer replaced the defective refrigerator with another refrigerator brand Videocon Model/ year V-58 WFT 3/ 2010 type frost free, gross volume 485 litre storing volume 415 litres. At the time of replacement, the complainant raised the objection that the refrigerator is a model of 2010 and it was an old one in comparison to the first refrigerator and upon this the dealer as well as manufacturer’s representative assured that it was a new and unused refrigerator having fresh five years guarantee and warranty from the date of its replacement, so there is no need to worry. The said refrigerator was replaced on 25.12.2012. The complainant never demanded exchange or replacement of defective refrigerator but it was exchanged and was straightway sent to their residence. In fact the replaced refrigerator was not new one and same is also defective, sub-standard, useless and also having cracks in the body of the freezer and due to the cracks it started giving trouble soon after the installation. The matter was again brought to the notice of dealer as well as to the manufacturing company and upon this op no.2 assured the complainant that they would get replaced the defective refrigerator with a new one within a short span of time or they would refund the cost of refrigerator to the complainant but the defective refrigerator is still lying in the premises of complainant in idle condition. The ops knowingly and intentionally supplied the defective and old refrigerator at the time of purchase and in replacement which was a make of 2010. The complainant also got served notice upon ops on 17.7.2014 but to no avail and now the ops finally refused to refund the cost of refrigerator on 2.12.2014. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of ops No.1 & 2 despite service and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3. Initially op no.3 appeared and sought various opportunities for filing written statement but did not file the same and ultimately none appeared on behalf of op no.3. As such, op no.3 was also proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 25.11.2011 Ex.C2, report of mechanic of Modern Electric Works Ex.C3, report of one Pankaj Mechanic dated 13.3.2013 Ex.C4 and postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Having given regard to the contentions put forth by the complainant and documents submitted by complainant which are unchallenged and unrebutted, we see whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the refrigerator or for repair of the same. As per report of one Pankaj Mechanic dated 13.3.2013 Ex.C4 there are several cracks in the refrigerator and same is not repairable whereas as per report of mechanic of Modern Electric Works Ex.C3, the refrigerator is repairable in the factory of the company. Keeping in view the fact that refrigerator in question was replaced on 25.12.2012 and complainant has filed the present complaint on 22.12.2014, we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would be met if the opposite parties are directed to repair the refrigerator in question and to make it defect free after replacement of parts, if any free of costs.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the refrigerator in question and to make it defect free after replacement of parts, if any free of costs. In case the refrigerator in question is not repairable, then the opposite parties will replace the same with new one. All the opposite parties are liable to comply this order jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 23.11.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member
