SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P. Act, 2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where the OP No.1 is the Manager of Voltbek Home Appliances Private Limited, Mumbai and OP No.2 is the Proprietor of M/s Krishna Telecom, Khantapada, Balasore.   

2.         The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 30.03.2022 she purchased one Voltbeko  240 Litres refrigerator from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.19,000/-. The said refrigerator was installed by the authorized technician of company on 31.03.2022. On 01.04.2022, the complainant found poor cooling and leakage problem in the refrigerator. Thus, the complainant informed OP No.2 to solve the problems, but surprisingly OP No.2 denied to solve the problems stating that his duty to sell the goods and not to provide service. Finding no other way out, the complainant informed the company through customer care, but no solution was provided. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice on 17.07.2022. On receipt of the same, the Ops threatened over phone that she will get nothing and when the complainant demanded for replacement, the Ops undertaken the replacement on 05.10.2022 through delivery courier. The replaced piece was uncovered and installed by the company authorized technician on 07.10.2022. The replaced piece was without base stand and vegetable tray which was a lower model and the model of which is not available in the market. This type of attitude of the Ops shows their negligence and irresponsibility to provide after sale service facilities.        

            The cause of action of this case arose on 12.10.2022, when the complainant found that after setting of the controlling regular, inside of the refrigerator became floody. Thus, the complainant was constrained to file the present case with the prayer as stated in the complainant petition. Hence, this case.

            To substantiate her case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -

1. Photocopy of tax invoice issued by OP No.2.
2. Photocopy of the report of mechanic of Voltas Company.
3. Photocopy of e-mail sent on behalf of complainant to OP No.1.
4. Photocopy of legal notice sent to Ops and its registration receipts.

3.         In the case at hand, the notices were issued against the Ops. On receipt of notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version, whereas OP No.2 did not appear and hence, he was set ex parte.

4.         OP No.1, in his written version, admitted the fact of purchase of Voltbeko 240 Ltr refrigerator by the complainant from Op No.2 on 30.03.2022. OP No.1 has stated, inter alia, that the complainant faced low cooling issue in her refrigerator after few days of purchase and soon after receipt of complainant, OP No.1 replaced the defective refrigerator with a new one which does have any vegetable tray, for which their Area Service Manager has already conveyed her to provide the same on free of cost. At that time, the complainant denied to have taken the shelter of law for a pity item and the company had given her the proposal for free of cost replacement. The complainant is very much enjoying the usage of the newly replaced refrigerator.

5.         In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

(ii)         Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?

(iii)        Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law?

(iv)        Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

(v)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

F    I    N    D    I    N    G    S

 6.        In the present case, it is to be seen how far the complainant is proved herself to be a consumer as required U/s 2(7) (i) & (ii) of the C.P. Act. In the present case, OP No.2 found to have been set ex parte. OP No.1 did not challenge that the complainant is not a consumer, rather, admitted that the complainant has purchased one refrigerator of their company. That apart, Annexure-1 clearly established that the complainant is a customer under the Ops. Therefore, it can safely be held that the complainant is a consumer.  

7.         For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the case, the Issues No. ii, iii & iv are taken up together. Authorized representative for the complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased one refrigerator (Voltbeko of 240 Litres) from OP No.2 for Rs.19,000/-, which was installed by the authorized technician of company on 31.03.2022. But, on 01.04.2022, when she found poor cooling and leakage problem in the refrigerator, informed OP No.2 to solve the problems to which OP No.2 denied to solve the problems stating that his duty to sell the goods and not to provide service. Finding no other way out, the complainant informed the company through customer care, but no solution was provided. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice on 17.07.2022. On receipt of the same, the OP No.2 threatened over phone that she will get nothing and when the complainant demanded for replacement, the Ops replaced the old one and installed a new refrigerator by the company authorized technician on 07.10.2022. The replaced piece was without base stand and vegetable tray, which was a lower model and the model of which is not available in the market. This type of attitude of the Ops shows their shows their negligence and irresponsibility to provide after sale service facilities.        

8.         On the other hand, Authorized person for contesting OP stated that the complainant had purchased one Voltbeko 240 Ltr refrigerator from Op No.2 on 30.03.2022. As the complainant found low cooling issue in her refrigerator after few days of purchase, she complained before them and soon after receipt of the complaint, the OP No.1 replaced the defective refrigerator with a new one, which does have any vegetable tray, for which their Area Service Manager has already conveyed her to provide the same on free of cost. At that time, the complainant denied to have taken the shelter of law for a pity item and the company had given her the proposal for free of cost replacement. The complainant is very much enjoying the usage of the newly replaced refrigerator.

9.         From the above rival submissions of both the parties, it is clear that the complainant had purchased one refrigerator of their company from OP No.2, which was found defective with low cooling and when she lodged complaint before OP No.2, he denied to provide any kind of service. On the other hand, OP No.1 being acted upon replaced the old refrigerator and installed a new one without any vegetable tray. At that time, the Area Service Manager assured to provide a tray soon free of cost. But as it is seen, neither the Ops have taken any initiative to provide the same, for which the complainant sustained mental agony and harassment. The refrigerator in question is found defective within the warranty period. The contesting OP has also not challenged about the warranty period. Since the date of instalment of replaced refrigerator i.e. 07.10.2022 till today, the Ops seems to have been withholding themselves from making the refrigerator of the complainant good condition, which otherwise amounts to deficiency in service.

10.       From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant has cause of action to file the present case and the same is maintainable. It is further held that both the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, as claimed by the complainant what-so-ever in this case.

            Hence, it is ordered –

O   R   D   E   R

            The case of the complainant is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and on ex parte against OP No.2. Both the Ops are hereby jointly and severally set liable for their deficiency of service as under:-

1. The Ops are hereby directed to replace the refrigerator in question of the complainant with a brand new refrigerator of same specification or its available above specification model or to pay Rs.19,000/- towards cost of the above mentioned refrigerator of the complainant along with interest @ 9.00 % P.A. from the date of cause of action (12.10.2022), till the date of actual payment by the Ops to the complainant.
2. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay, along with aforementioned amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/-  as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses, to the complainant.

            All the aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the Ops to the complainant within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of this order. The deferment in any manner / mode / reason / step for compliance of this order, the Ops shall carry an additional interest of @ 6.00% PA, upon Order No. 1, payable by the defaulting Ops to the complainant.

            In case of failure by the Ops to comply any of the orders as above mentioned, within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the defaulter Ops as per the prevailing law.

            Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 30^th day of October, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.