Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)


On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Kuljit Pal Sharma

16 Mar 2023


Final Order of DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, Court Room No.19, Block-C,Judicial Court Complex, BATHINDA-151001 (PUNJAB)
Complaint Case No. CC/19/306
( Date of Filing : 19 Nov 2019 )
1. Sanjeev Kumar
Lens and Optical company near Hero Agency Opposite Hotel Gold Star near Bibi wala chowk, Bathinda
1. On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd
Railway Road, Near Kanwal cinema opposite bridge, Bathinda
2. On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd
#9918/5, Multani Dhandra, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi
 HON'BLE MR. Lalit Mohan Dogra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Shivdev Singh MEMBER
PRESENT:Kuljit Pal Sharma, Advocate for the Complainant 1
Dated : 16 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement




CC No.251 of 07-10-2020

Decided on : 16-3-2023


Hajura Singh S/o S. Harnam Singh aged about 66 years, R/o Village Khialiwala, Tehsil Goniana Mandi District Bathinda.


  1. ........Complainant


  1. Davy Electronics, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda, through its Prop./Owner.

  2. Samsung Customer Care Centre, Model Town, Phase-3, Near Sai Mandir, Bathinda.

  3. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A-25, Ground Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi.

.......Opposite parties


    Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019



    Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

    Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member



    For the complainant : Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.

    For opposite parties : Opposite party no.1 & 2 ex-parte.

    ORDER Sh. K.P. Sharma For OP No.3


    Shivdev Singh, Member


    1. The complainant Hajura Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Davy Electronics and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

    2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 29.2.2015, he purchased Refrigerator, make Samsung Model No. RR23J2415SA/TL, Serial No. 0A1V4ZAG600037W, from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 17,800/- with ten years warranty. The opposite party No.1 is the dealer, opposite party No.2 is service centre and opposite party No.3 is the manufacturing company. At the time of purchase of said refrigerator, opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the said refrigerator has warranty of ten years. Even, the warranty sticker pasted on the door of refrigerator door shows that the warranty period of the refrigerator.

    3. It is alleged that after purchasing the refrigerator, the problem of low cooling was discovered and complainant immediately informed opposite party No.1. On 26.08.2020, opposite party No.1, sent employee of opposite party No.2 and he repaired the refrigerator and stated that the refrigerator is temporarily repaired but it is not a permanent solution. He also demanded Rs.1475/- from complainant which was paid by complainant.

    4. It is also alleged that on 28.08.2020, the refrigerator again started creating problem of low cooling and again complainant approached opposite party No. 2. The employee of opposite party No. 2 inspected the refrigerator and instructed the complainant to take it to the service centre for proper inspection and for its repair. On 30.08.2020, the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 and complained about not working of refrigerator and opposite party No.2 demanded money/charges for repairing the refrigerator. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 that he is not liable to pay any amount for repair of the refrigerator as it is under warranty of ten years as per opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.2 refused to repair the refrigerator as per the warranty conditions. The opposite parties have done wrong and illegal act by selling a defective refrigerator to complainant.

    5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to repair the refrigerator free of cost as per warranty and if defect is not rectified, then to replace the refrigerator; refund Rs. 1475/- and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 Lac in addition to litigation expenses.

    6. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them.

    7. Upon notice, the opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version raising preliminary objections that present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and no cause of action has arisen to complainant to file the present complaint.

    8. It has been pleaded that refrigerator in question has been purchased on 29-08-2015 from opposite party No.1. The first complaint has been lodged on 26-08-2020, which shows that complainant has used the refrigerator in question for 5 years without any kind of problem. On 26-08-2020 when the complaint was lodged the product in question was out of warranty, as there is warranty of one year for the entire refrigerator and additional 9 years warranty is for compressor only. After the expiry of warranty period, the opposite party is only liable to repair the product on chargeable basis.

    9. It has also been pleaded that visiting service engineer found that 'Dryer and Compressor' have become defective and needs replacement. As the compressor of the refrigerator was covered under warranty, it was replaced free of cost and chargers of Rs.1475/- for 'Dryer and gas refilling' were paid by the complainant. The refrigerator was duly repaired on 1-09-2020 and after repair the product was perfectly working. Thereafter complainant has not reported any kind of problem. As per record of opposite party No. 3 till date, complainant has lodged only one complaint on 26-08-2020 after 5 years of purchase and extensive usage. The service engineer visited the premises of complainant for checking the product. On checking the product the service engineer advised complainant that 'Compressor & Dryer' needs replacement. As the refrigerator was out of warranty but compressor was covered under warranty. Therefore compressor was replaced free of cost and dryer & gas refilling was done on chargeable basis. But complainant knowing that warranty period of one year has already expired and repair is to be done on chargeable basis only has filed the present false complaint for refund of repair charges of Rs.1475/- paid to opposite party No.2.

    10. Further preIiminary objections are that the present complaint is gross abuse of process of law and is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. The complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of vague, evasive and false allegations with malafide intention to extract money from the opposite party by dragging in unwanted litigation. The complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of refrigerator or refund of price with damages and litigation cost. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed an documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law.

    11. The opposite party No. 3 has pleaded that even if the allegations of the complainant is taken as gospel truth, the defect if any can be rectified by repair work, no direction for replacement or refund of cost of product can be issued. As per condition of warranty, replacement of product or refund is experssly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of any part thereof which needs replacement or repair for any reason of defective workmanship or defective components, which makes it clear that there is defect in a part, it shall only be repaired and or replaced by the opposite parties. Further, in case of damage, the product can only be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the customer.

    12. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 denied all the averments of the complainant and reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

    13. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 7.10.2021 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5).

    14. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence two affidavits namely Rajeev Gupta dated 10-12-2020 (Ex. OP-3/1) and Chamkaur Singh dated 10.12.2020 (Ex. OP-3/2) and documents (Ex.OP-3/3 & Ex.OP-3/4).

    15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

    16. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

    17. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

    18. To prove his case, counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant (Ex.C-1) alongwith other documents. Counsel for the complainant has argued that refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant on 29-8-2015 and was having warranty of 10 years. However the said fact has been denied by the counsel for the opposite party No. 3 by placing on record warranty card (Ex. OP-3/4), as per which the warranty on the said product was for a period of 5 years. However, a perusal of file shows that said refrigerator developed problem on 26-8-2020 which is within 5 years. As such, covered under the warranty. However, counsel for opposite party No. 3 has claimed to have repaired the refrigerator of the complainant as per Ex. OP-3/3 but counsel for the complainant stated that refrigerator is still not working and in as it is condition, on account of which complainant is suffering lot of harassment.

    19. Moreover, photograph (Ex. C-2) shows that opposite parties have mentioned warranty of 10 years on the sticker affixed on the body of the said refrigerator which itself is a business mal-practice and further warranty of 9 years on compressor has already been admitted by opposite party No. 3 in its written statement. This shows that 10 years warranty has been written to allure the customers with false promises whereas on the warranty card produced by the opposite party No. 3, warranty of 5 years has been mentioned. Accordingly, failure on the part of the opposite parties to repair the refrigerator to the satisfaction of the complainant, amouns to deficiency in service.

    20. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to repair the refrigerator of the complainant free of cost and also give 10 years warranty from the date of sale of product as per sticker (Ex. C-2) attached on the body of the refrigerator. No order as to costs.

    21. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

    23. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

      Announced :


      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)




      (Shivdev Singh)


    [HON'BLE MR. Lalit Mohan Dogra]
    [HON'BLE MR. Shivdev Singh]

    Consumer Court Lawyer

    Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

    Bhanu Pratap

    Featured Recomended
    Highly recommended!
    5.0 (615)

    Bhanu Pratap

    Featured Recomended
    Highly recommended!


    Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

    Phone Number


    Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.