Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Debraj Das
For OP/OPs : None
Date of filing of the case :01.12.2020
Date of Disposal of the case : 06.03.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.06.03.2023
This is a case under section 35 of the Consumer Protection act 2019 filed by the aforesaid complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to the OP for refund of Rs. 23,250/-, and compensation amounting to Rs. 40,000/- and cost of the case amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.
Complainant stated in the complaint that he purchased one refrigerator from OP no. 4 on consideration of Rs. 23,250/- on 15.09.2019. He found defect on 21.12.2019 and informed the matter to Op o. 1 to 3 on 22.12.2020. Technician of the OP visited the house of Complainant and after examination of aforesaid Refrigerator told that compressor has damaged and refrigerator will be changed by the company within 90 days but Ops did not change the refrigerator .
Complainant made several communications with the OPs but all in vain.
Notice served upon OP no. 1 , 3 and 4 but they did not turn up.
Case is running ex-parte against OP no. 1 ,3 and 4 vide order dtd. 21.03.2022.
Name of Op no. 2 has expunged vide order dtd. 21.03.2022.
During Ex-parte hearing of this case, complainant produced some original documents including the original purchase receipt dtd. 15.09.2019 and warrantee book of the product.
(3)
Ld. Adv. for the complainant submitted Affidavit – in – Chief which is unchallenged testimony. He also made verbal submission.
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents. No doubt regarding genuineness of these documents appeared before us and we think that these documents may be considered.
DECISION WITH REASONS
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the refrigerator on 15.09.2019 on consideration of Rs.23,250/- but defect of the refrigerator was noticed on 21.12.2019. Thereafter the technician of the Ops came to his house and examined the product and told that compressor of the refrigerator has damaged and company will change the same within 90days but Ops did not comply the same.
Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. We find that Complainant purchased refrigerator from OP no. 4 on 15.09.2019 upon payment of Rs. 23,250/-.
Perused the warranty book we find that one year comprehensive warranty has given provided that the refrigerator is still in the possession and used by the purchaser, as from the date of purchase.
More over nine years warranty has given on compressor on condition that the refrigerator and all parts thereof ( except the light bulb, crisper glass, Handle, key, leg and plastic Parts) to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service. WOIL’s obligations under this Warranty shall be limited to repairing or providing the replacement of any part ( except the light bulb, crisper glass, Handle, key, Leg and plastic parts) of said refrigerator which thus proves defective within one year from the date of original purchase and which on WOIL’s examination discloses to its satisfaction to be thus
(4)
defective.
In the present case defect was found on 22.12.2019 i.e almost within 3 months .
In the present case OP no. 1,3 and 4 are not contesting the case so, we could not hear their version on the dispute.
Complainant files affidavit in chief which is unchallenged testimony. . We do not find any reasons to disbelieve the same .
From the contents of the allegations it is clear before us that Complainant is the consumer and OP no. 1 ,3 and 4 are service provider.
Considering the materials on record and in view of the aforesaid discussion we do not find any reason to disbelieve the aforesaid contention of the complainant. So we are of the opinion that complainant purchased the aforesaid refrigerator on payment of RS. 23,250/- but defect was noticed within 3 months and technician of Op no. 1,3 and 4 gave an assurance of replacement of refrigerator but did not comply the same but they avoided to replace the refrigerator to the Complainant.
So it is held that Op no. 1,3 and 4 have jointly or severally and willfully neglected to replace the refrigerator to the Complainant.
So we are of the further view that complainant has able to establish his grievance against the OP no. 1 ,3 and 4 before this Commission which amounts to deficiency of services on the part of Opno. 1,3 and 4 under the purview of C.P.Act 2019.
Accordingly we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result petition of the complainant succeeds.
(5)
Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the present case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP no. 1,3 and 4 With cost of rs. 3,000/- to be paid by the Op no. 1 , 3 and 4 in favour of the Complainant.
That the OP no 1,3 and 4 jointly or severally are hereby directed to replace the refrigerator of the Complainant which he purchased form OP no 4 on 15.09.2019 by the same modal and same company within one month form this date failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put the order into execution .
OP no. 1,3 and4 are further directed to pay compensation amounting
Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for his harassment, mental pain and agony.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as free of cost.
Let a copy of this order be sent to OP No.1,3,4 for compliance.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
.................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
I concur,
.............................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
