District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.46/2022.
Date of Institution: 21.01.2022.
Date of Order: 21.11.2022.
Rajdhani Meat Shop, Shop No. 9, Neelam Flyover, Ankit Plaza, NIT Faridabad through its proprietor/owner Shabir Qurashi.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Blue Star Limited, Plot NO.8, Elegance Tower, First Floor Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025. Through its Manager/Principal Office/Diector/AR.
2. Haryana Ref. AIR Company, C-20, Arya Samaj Road, Nehru Ground, 1H-14, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana – 121001 through its proprietor/Owner.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Naresh Vashisth, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ravi Nagpal, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Deep Freezer, make Blue Star, Model CHD500A, Sr. No. GHF500ADRM19268, vide invoice No.. 003796 dated 01.10.2018 for Rs. 27,000/- only (including GST), with 1+2 warranty from opposite party No.1, at the time of purchase opposite party No.1 assured that afore said deep freezer was of very good quality. After few months of purchase aforesaid deep freezer started creating the problem to the complainant and could not cool properly and in the scenario most of items like meat etc. were spoiled due to the poor cooling/out of order of the said deep freezer. The complainant complained/communicated many times and contacted to opposite party No.1 who advised to contact with opposite party No.2 whereupon the complainant contacted several times to opposite party No.2 but neither opposite party No.1 nor opposite party No.2, responded properly and deliberated ignored the legitimate requests of the complainant on one pretext or the other. Opposite party No.2 visited many times but remains failed to fix the problem Various verbal/telephonic complaints had been made by the complainant to the opposite parties in this regards but no action had been taken till date.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) either to replace the defective above mentioned deep freeze with a new one with extended warranty or to refund the amount of Rs.27,000/- alongwith interest of @ 18% p.a. from the date of its due till realization of whole amount.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 on 2.3.2022 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it has been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order 30.03.2022.
3. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has filed an application on 24.05.2022 for setting aside of ex-parte order dated 30.03.2022. The Counsel for the complainant has made endorsement on the application itself that the has NO Objection if the application was allowed. Keeping in view of the endorsement made by counsel for the complainant, application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 30.03.2022 was allowed. Opposite party No.1 filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that no cause of action was arise in favour of the complainant and against the answering opposite party as there was non defect in the said deep freezer and it was functioning well, giving proper cooling. As the said deep freezer had no manufacturing defect and it was only a complainant’s misconception and the complainant adamantly ask for replacing the product and refunding the amount without any justifiable cause The present complaint had been filed by the complainant with malicious and malafide intentions to harass, blackmail and extort money from the answering opposite party and with the sole intention of causing undue harassment to the answering opposite party. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notice issued to opposite party No. 2 on 2.3.2022 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order 30.3.2022.
5. Shri Naresh Vashisth, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that affidavit and documents already filed on behalf of the complainant be read as the evidence of the complainant. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the complainant has been closed vide order dated 20.04.2022.
6. The opposite party led evidence in support of its respective version.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
8. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Blue Star Limited & Ors. with the prayer to: ) either to replace the defective above mentioned deep freeze with a new one with extended warranty or to refund the amount of Rs.27,000/- alongwith interest of @ 18% p.a. from the date of its due till realization of whole amount. B pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. c) pay Rs. 5500 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Tax invoice,, Receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 affidavit of Shri Chetan Sharm working as Manager (Law) At Blue Star Ltd., 6th floor, Vatika Atrium, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurugram.
9. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Deep Freezer, make Blue Star, Model CHD500A, Sr. No. GHF500ADRM19268, vide invoice No.. 003796 dated 01.10.2018 for Rs. 27,000/- only (including GST), with 1+2 warranty from opposite party No.1 After few months of its purchase, the above said Deep Freeezer had gone out of order and was not in proper working condition. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally ipso facto go to prove that the deep freezer in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
10. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, jointly & severally, are directed to replace the Deep Freezer in question with a new one, subject to return the old deep freezer, with the payment of 10% of invoice amount
within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 21.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
