DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 282 of 1.8.2018

                                      Decided on:   8.9.2021

Kulwinder Singh S/o Kesar Singh, resident of Opposite Verka Milk Plant, village Hassanpur, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Durga Electronics, Near Hemkunt Petrol Pump, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Patiala through its Proprietor Rohit Goyal.
2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana), through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Inderpal Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OP No.2.                                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant purchased a refrigerator of Samsung Company from OP  No.1 for Rs.76,500/- and guarantee of five years of compressor and two years guarantee on the other parts of body of the refrigerator was also given.
2. It is averred that after 15-20 of the purchase, the refrigerator stopped giving cooling and the complainant made complaint to OP No.1 and also lodged the complaint with OP No.2.It is averred that engineer of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant who after thorough inspections told that there was problem of gas due to which the refrigerator was not giving proper cooling. Then the complainant approached OP No.1 but he flatly refused to replace the defective refrigerator. It is further averred that the complainant got sent legal notice dated 13.3.2018 upon the OPs to replace the defective refrigerator with new one or the refund the full cost of the same but they did not pay any heed. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to replace the  defective refrigerator with new one or the refund the full amount of Rs.76500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.
3. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs .OP No.2 appeared and filed the written reply whereas none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 despite service and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In the written reply filed by OP No.2, it raised preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. On merits , it is admitted that there is warranty of one year on the refrigerator and additional 4 year warranty for compressor only. It is also admitted that service engineer visited the house of the complainant on 28.2.2018 and found the problem of gas due to which the refrigerator was not giving proper cooling. The engineer offered to refill the gas free of cost but the complainant did not permit the engineer to rectify the problem. It is pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendeed in evidence Ex.CW1/A affidavit of the complainant alongwih documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anup Kumar Mathur alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased refrigerator from OP No.1 for Rs.76500/- and the bill was issued in favour of the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that after 15-20 days of the purchase, the refrigerator stopped giving proper cooling and that complaint was lodged with OP No.2 who assured that the defect will be removed. The ld. counsel further argued that engineer of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and after checking found that there was gas problem due to which the refrigerator was not giving proper cooling. Despite this fact, the defect was not removed. So the complaint be allowed.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that for the reason best known to the complainant, he did not permit the engineer to rectify the defect in the refrigerator. The ld. counsel further  argued that in the absence of any independent expert evidence on the file, the complaint cannot be allowed. So the complaint be dismissed.
10. To prove this case Kulwinder Singh has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the invoice of M/s Durga Electronics of Rs.76500/-,Ex.C2 is legal notice , Exs.C3 and C4 are postal receipts,Ex.C5 aadhar card.
11. On the other hand Sh.Anup Kumar Mathur has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA on behalf of OP and he has deposed as per the written reply as he has stated that in the absence of any expert evidence the complaint cannot be allowed.Ex.OP1 is warranty card, valid only for India.
12. In the present case, admittedly Sh.Kulwinder Singh has purchased the refrigerator from OP No.1 on 2.12.2017 for Rs.76500/- vide invoice Ex.C1.After that the legal notice was served on 13.3.2018 and it is mentioned that the complainant purchased the refrigerator for Rs.76500/- and there was guarantee on compressor of five years and two years guarantee on other parts but the refrigerator was giving gas problem as it was not giving proper cooling.
13. So it is clear that the refrigerator started giving cooling problem and gas problem after three months of its purchase. The OP No.2 has stated that their engineer visited the house of the complainant but he was never permitted to rectify the defect. There is no document on the file which can show that which engineer of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and on which date and time he visited the house of the complainant. In the absence of this evidence, it is not proved that engineer of OP No.2 has visited the house of the complainant to rectify the defect. There was no need for the complainant to file any expert evidence as it was the duty of both the OPs to rectify the defect. It is proved that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator for Rs.76500/- and it was started giving cooling problem.
14. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the both the OPs jointly and severally  are liable to rectify the complaint of gas problem due to which the refrigerator was not giving proper cooling and to change the part which is required for proper functioning of the gas and proper functioning of the refrigerator, free of cost. The OPs are further  directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.        

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:8.9.2021         

                             Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar              Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President