CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.482/2012

SH. C.L. MEHTA

C-713, JVTS GARDEN,

CHATTARPUR EXTENSION,

NEW DELHI-110074

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                  

Vs.

RUCHIKA SERVICES

AUTHORISED ELECTROLUX SERVICE CENTRE

101-A, HARI NAGAR ASHRAM,

NEW DELHI-110014

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                 Date of Order:03.11.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav, President

On 19.07.12 complainant lodged a complaint with OP regarding non-cooling of his refrigerator.  Mr. Sunil, Service Engineer of OP, checked and found that there was some problem with the chocking of gas which was corrected and a sum of Rs.1,550/- was charged.  Mr. Sunil did not find any fault with the compressor of the refrigerator.  Again on 29.09.12 Mr. Sarvesh, Service Engineer of OP came to examine cooling of refrigerator and charged Rs.370/- for that and confirmed that there is no problem with the compressor.  Again the complaint was lodged regarding non-cooling on 16.10.12 when Mr. Vijender, Service Engineer of OP visited and told that there was problem with the compressor and he further told that the new compressor would cost Rs.5,500/-.  Mr. Vijender, Service Engineer of OP, came to replace the old compressor with new one but he could not do so inspite of his best efforts for around six hours.  Mr. Vijender stated that he would come next day i.e. 09.10.12 to do the needful.  Mr. Vijender also took compressor as well the new compressor and the same was not returned despite contacting OP number of times hence this complaint was filed for deficiency in service whereby complainant has prayed to pay Rs.5500/- towards price of the compressor and Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.1000/- for litigation expenses. 

One Mr. Rahul Upadhyay, AR appeared for the OP on 15.07.13 and sought time to file reply.  Copy of the complain was supplied to him.  Thereafter nobody appeared for OP and ultimately OP was proceeded ex parte on 27.01.14.  Complainant has not placed anything on record to show as to what was the price of compressor.  It is not the case of complainant that he has prayed for Rs.5,500/- towards the compressor but his claim is that his compressor was taken away by the OP as there was problem in the compressor.  It is proved from the unchallenged testimony of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to pay Rs.5,500/- as the cost of compressor alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation.

Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

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

(D.R. TAMTA)                    (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

         MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT