Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/22/2014

MR DAHAL ADITYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S UMANG - Opp.Party(s)

SRI SUDEB CH. GOSWAMI

07 Nov 2017

ORDER

        The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one LG refrigerator being Model No.GL-M292RATL.ACIZEBN, Serial No. 404NRRD164838 from the OP at Rs.28,000/- vide Invoice No.1227/RI/14-15/U (A), Challan No.TI/1227 dated 07-07-14. But immediately after purchase of the said refrigerator  the manufacturing defect croped up for which he went to the OP with a request to replace the same. After repeated request OP sent one technician for necessary inspection and confirmation of the defect. The technician after inspection found that the refrigerator was having major manufacturing defect and issued a job sheet No.RNA 141007005675 dated 08-10-14 acknowledging the defect. As such, the complainant  visited several times to the establishment of the OP. But the OP instead of solving the problem dragged the matter unnecessarily. However, the refrigerator was within the period of warranty. As such, complainant demanded for its replacement or  refund the purchased money but the OP did not respond at all. The complainant issued legal notice dated 18-10-14 to OP asking to refund the entire amount of Rs.28,000/- along with compensation to which the OP did not reply or comply the request. Meanwhile, the complainant purchased another refrigerator in order to meet his day to day necessity. The complainant had to purchase the said refrigerator due to negligence and unfair trade practice committed by OP. For the act of OP the complainant had to move from post to pillar for manufacturing defect of the refrigerator which is amount to negligence and unfair trade practice by the OP by thereby cheating the complainant. Hence , the complainant filed this case claiming compensation as well as refund of Rs.28000/- along with cost of litigation.

 

After registering the case, notice was issued to  the OP to which OP filed written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in  fact. It is stated that case filed by the complainant is false and fabricated. The complainant after purchasing the refrigerator informed OP about technical problem suffered by him. The OP getting the above complaint immediately informed  the service centre of LG Company and accordingly the representative of the Company visited to attend the complaint and requested the complainant to check the said defect and if necessary it would be repaired. But the complainant did not agree to him. The OP also assured the complainant that he would personally deal the matter with the Company and if necessary he would replace the same and the OP never expressed his inability to cure the same. However, the complainant took it as his personal prestige and dragged the matter unnecessarily. The complainant has wrongly involved the OP in this case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the case against  the OP.

 

   In this case Complainant gave his evidence by swearing an affidavit and  exhibited as many as 7 (seven) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OP  examined one Sri Ajay Gupta, Proprietor, M/s Umang  and exhibited no document to rebut the case of the complainant.

 

 

      

          DISCUSSION,DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

  

           

Upon going through the evidence as well as documentary evidence it is found that complainant on 07-07-14 purchased one LG refrigerator being Model No.GL-M292RATL.ACIZEBN, Serial No. 404NRRD164838 from the OP at Rs.28,000/- which is not denied by OP. The cash memo Ext.2 and 3 shows that the refrigerator was purchased at Rs.23,000/-. However, complainant stated that though the cost of the refrigerator shown as Rs.23,000/- in Ext.2 and 3 but rest amount out of Rs.28000/- as adjusted  on old BPL refrigerator of the complainant. This matter has also not been denied by the OP. Further, from the evidence of the complainant as PW-1 it is found that immediately after purchasing the refrigerator, it was not functioning properly due to its manufacturing defect and the said malfunctioning of the refrigerator was within warranty period for which, the complainant reported to the OP for its replacement.  But, the OP instead of replacement asked the complainant to wait for some days with an assurance that he will do something after being confirmed. Accordingly, the OP sent technician of LG Company to inspect the refrigerator. The technician after inspection of the refrigerator found that the refrigerator was suffering from  major defect i.e. manufacturing defect and issued job sheet with the remark that “........ CHOCKED CUSTOMER REFUSED TO REPAIR IT AS A NEW REFRIGERATOR, SO PAPER SUBMITTED FOR REPLACEMENT”. Ext-4 is the said remark and job sheet. Accordingly, the complainant visited  the OP repeatedly with request to replace the refrigerator. But the OP instead of responding him avoided him on various pretext and informed him that the problem would be solved after arrival of the Company’s engineer. The OP openly expressed the inability to cure the refrigerator. The OP as DW-1 stated that the complainant informed him about the problem and technical defect of the refrigerator which the OP took immediate action and informed to the service centre of LG Company. The representative of the Company requested the complainant to check the defect and if necessary same would be repaired. But the complainant did not agree to him in spite of assurance given by the OP that he would personally deal the matter with the Company and if necessary he would approach the Company to replace the same. The complainant instead of repairing took the matter as his prestige and later he refused to meet the representative of the Company.

 

       However, after meticulous scrutiny of the evidence of both the parties particularly from the documents submitted by the complainant it appears that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was  manufacturing defect as a result of which the complainant did not get any service of the refrigerator for the purpose which it was purchased. Further, from Ext-4 it appears clear that the refrigerator had a major defect which is termed as manufacturing defect and the manufacturing defect was not curable and the technician who visited to inspect the refrigerator remarked replacement of the refrigerator. Whereas, the OP instead of replacing the same dragged the matter unnecessarily for checking the same by Company engineer. Besides, OP could not assure to make the same fit for use at any point of time.

The OP dragging the matter unnecessarily even after issuing the notice i.e. Ext-6. Complainant finding no other alternative had to purchase a new Samsung refrigerator for his day to day necessity. After purchasing a new refrigerator no person would expect  about the defect of the same and naturally the complainant  when found manufacturing defect of the said refrigerator he would approach to the seller immediately so that he get proper service of the refrigerator but in the instant case  the OP dragged the matter for no reason.

In view of the foregoing discussion and decision and after considering the fact and evidence this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that the evidence disclosed by DW-1 has failed to rebut and impair the evidence led by PW-1 as regard to the manufacturing defect of the said refrigerator which croped up immediately after purchase and cannot be cured. The unimpaired testimony of PW-1 and the plea which has been taken by OP is highly contradictory and inconsistent with  regard to the liability of OP. The complainant for manufacturing defect which croped up immediately after purchase of the said refrigerator, suffered mental harassment, tension and had to move from post to pillar for no fault of him.  Considering the above fact and evidence led by PW-1 both oral and documentary evidence has been able to establish the material deficiency in service and illegal trade practice committed by OP as defined U/s 12 of the C.P. Act. As such, the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.28,000/- for selling the defective refrigerator @ 9% interest  from the filing of the case till realisation. Further, OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for giving such mental harassment and agony to the complainant by not replacing the defective refrigerator. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of filing the instant case. The OP is directed to pay the above amount within one month from the date of this judgment through this Forum. Furnish copy of this judgment to the OP for compliance.