Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/409

Rajiv Kakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Sales - Opp.Party(s)

H.S Virk

10 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. RBT/CC/409

 Instituted on:   08.10.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     10.08.2023

 

Rajiv Kakkar aged 35 years son of Surinder Kakkar R/O Sui Gaah Mohalla, Patiala.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Garg Sales, Jourian Bhattian, Patiala through its Prop/Signatory.

2.             Samsung Customer Service Centre, BS Electronics No.1, Rajbaha Road, Shop No.1,2, Inside Gill Complex, Opposite Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib through Manager.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122202 through Authorized Manager.

             ….Opposite parties 

 

For the complainant:                   :Shri  S.P.Singh, Adv.              

For the OP        No.1                  :Exparte.

For the OP No.2&3             :Shri J.S.Sandhu,Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

                 Sarita Garg, Member  

                 Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

               

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one Samsung refrigerator RS62K6007FG/TL (GT) ORE74ABJ800708 for an amount of Rs.70,000/- vide bill number 1012 dated 15.10.2017 from OP number 1. The grievance of the complainant is that from the very date of its purchase, the refrigerator in question is not working properly. Further case of complainant is that in the month of May, 2018 mechanic of the service centre came to the house of the complainant and checked the defect and after checking he replaced the gas in the refrigerator, but the problem of cooling was again there, but the mechanic did not issue any job sheet. Again in the month of August, 2018 the same problem arose in the refrigerator and the OP got changed the gas in the refrigerator, but the problem of cooling was there.  Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice on 4.9.2018 requesting the OPs to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund its price as the refrigerator in question is suffering with the manufacturing defects.  Further it is averred that due to supply of the defective refrigerator, the complainant suffered a lot in the hands of the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one or to pay/refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.70,000/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and litigation expenses.

3.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such was proceeded against exparte.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions as the complainant did not allow the OP to repair the refrigerator in question.  It is further averred that on the complaint of the complainant on 17.9.2018 the service engineer of the OP checked the refrigerator and found that step valve was required to be changed and thereafter refrigerator will be fully functional, but the complainant did not permit to do so.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the refrigerator is not denied.  It is stated further that in the month of May, 2018 mechanic of the OP number 2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the refrigerator, but there was not problem therein. However, it has been denied that in the month of August, 2018 any gas was changed. It is stated that the legal notice was duly replied on 9.10.2018. It is stated further that the refrigerator can be duly rectified by repairs but complainant himself refused to get the same repaired. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant purchased one Samsung refrigerator RS62K6007FG/TL (GT) ORE74ABJ800708 for an amount of Rs.70,000/- vide bill number 1012 dated 15.10.2017 from OP number 1 copy of which is on record as Ex.C-1. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the very date of its purchase, the refrigerator in question is not working properly, of which the complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs. Further the learned counsel has argued that in the month of May, 2018 mechanic of the service centre came to the house of the complainant and checked the defect and after checking he replaced the gas in the refrigerator, but the problem of cooling was again there, but the mechanic did not issue any job sheet. Again in the month of August, 2018 the same problem arose in the refrigerator and the OPs got changed the gas in the refrigerator, but the problem of cooling was there.  Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 4.9.2018, copy of which on record is Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 is the copy of postal receipts, which clearly shows that the notice in question was sent to the OPs to replace the refrigerator with a new one or to refund its price as the refrigerator in question is suffering with the manufacturing defects.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that due to supply of the defective refrigerator, the complainant suffered a lot in the hands of the OPs. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 2 and 3 has vehemently argued that the complainant did not allow the OPs to repair the refrigerator in question and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.             To prove the case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-A affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-1  copy of invoice showing purchase of the refrigerator in question and Ex.C-2 is the copy of legal notice served upon the OPs. The complainant has alleged in the complaint case that the OPs supplied the defective refrigerator, which was not repaired despite best efforts of the OPs.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant purchased the refrigerator in question for Rs.70,000/- on 15.10.2017 and the complainant filed the present complaint on 8.10.2018 within a very short span of one year and even it is an admitted fact that the defects in the refrigerator developed in the month of May, 2018 itself, but the refrigerator was not made in the working order.  Though the stand of the OPs is that the complainant did not allow the OPs to repair the refrigerator in question, but we are unable to accept this contention of the OPs tht they have miserably failed to prove this fact by not producing iota of evidence such like any affidavit of the engineer/mechanic who visited the house of the complainant to repair/replace any part of the refrigerator nor the OPs have produced any job order sheet to support their contention in the written reply.  We may mention that even no one has produced any affidavit on behalf of OP number 2 (Service centre) to prove the fact that the refrigerator in question was ever checked and the complainant was even made known about the repairable defects in the refrigerator.  The refrigerator could not be repaired by the OPs despite their best efforts, as such as alleged by the complainant the refrigerator developed defects again and again meaning thereby in May and August, 2018 and even thereafter the refrigerator is lying unused as the OPs did not repair the same. We find that the complainant has clearly proved his case that the OPs supplied the complainant a defective refrigerator.  Accordingly, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs  to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one of the same make and model. We further direct the complainant to return the defective refrigerator with all its accessories to the OPs at the time of receiving the replaced refrigerator. We also direct them to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.   This order be complied with by the opposite parties number  within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.           A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

    Pronounced.

   August 10, 2023.