BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:313 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 09.11.2015.
Date of Decision:18.08.2016
Mahesh Goyal son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of House No. 258, Vikas Nagar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Vikrant Electronics Co. Nehru Park K Samne, Circular Road, Bhiwani through its authorized signatory.
- Devraj Cooling Centre, Housing Board K Samne, Dadri Gate, Bhiwani through its authorized signatory.
- Take Care India Private Limited, Hisar.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Complainant in person.
OP no. 1 exparte (Sh. Ramesh representative of OP no. 1).
None for Ops no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased one refrigerator of Kelvinator company model no. KFL234WT-RDS Sr. No. 390311261336603829 vide bill no. 7375 dated 04.04.2011 amounting to Rs. 10400/-. It is alleged that the compressor of the refrigerator is not working and the door, top etc. of the refrigerator have been broken, as such the refrigerator is not in working condition. It is alleged that the complainant has taken the insurance cover for his refrigerator from OP no. 3 and OP no. 3 is bound to make necessary repairs of the refrigerator within the period of insurance cover, but the Ops have failed to make the necessary repairs of the refrigerator of the complainant. He submitted that the Ops are liable to replace the refrigerator in question. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complaint is time barred because the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 04.04.2011 whereas the complaint has been filed in the last of 2015. It is submitted that the answering respondent has nothing to do with the insurance of the refrigerator or repairs. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 3 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant registered a complaint to the dealer who then forwarded the complaint to the Company and the complainant took an annual Maintenance Contract with the Company and the service engineer replaced the thermostat and compliant was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant requested for change in the table top of the refrigerator the same was done as well as and the table top is not covered under the AMC and hence was a chargeable service. It is submitted that the complainant’s call have always been attended and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is submitted that the company has still not date received any request for replacement from the complainant. It is submitted that replacement of the product is done in cases where repair is not possible which was not the case for the product in question. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person.
6. Complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the compressor of the refrigerator is not working and the door, top etc. of the refrigerator have been broken, as such the refrigerator is not in working condition. The complainant has taken the insurance cover for his refrigerator from OP no. 3. Therefore, OP no. 3 is bound to make necessary repairs of the refrigerator within the period of insurance cover, but the Ops have failed to make the necessary repairs of the refrigerator of the complainant. He submitted that the Ops are liable to replace the refrigerator in question.
7. The representative of OP no. 1 was present, however he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.01.2016 passed by this District Forum. He has filed the written statement. The written statement has also been filed on behalf of OP no. 3 alongwith affidavit, however the written statement is unsigned.
8. From the perusal of the record, it seems that the Ops are not serious to appear and contest the case of the complainant. The refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant vide bill dated 04.04.2011 Annexure C-1 from OP no. 1. The job sheet is Annexure C-2. As per the contention of the complainant he had taken the insurance cover from the OP no. 3, to make necessary repairs in the refrigerator in case of any fault. The complainant has contended that the compressor of the refrigerator is carrying guarantee of 5 years, so the Ops are liable to replace the same. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to replace the compressor and damage part of the refrigerator in question, free of cost and put the same in working condition. It would be the responsibility of OP no. 1 that this order is complied with by the OP no. 3. This order be complied by the Ops within 30 days. Beyond the said stipulated period, the Ops shall also be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1500/- to the complainant, jointly and severally. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 18.08.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
