PER HON’BLE SRI. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER – JUDICIAL

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 U/s. 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this State Commission to allow the appeal and set aside order dated 01.11.2021 on the file of the District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, passed in CC No.218/2020 and may be please to pass such other order or orders as this Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant was the Opposite Party and Respondent was the complainant in the C.C.218/2020..

3. The case of the complainant as per the averments of the complaint is that on 28.01.2020 he purchased Samsung Refrigerator from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.52,000/-, which was delivered to him on 29.01.2020. He found that the left leg of the refrigerator was different from the other three legs as the said leg was slanting either due to damage of threading of the base or the leg was not original. The same was noticed by the technician who visited for demo and promised to report the same to their company. He complained the same to the dealer/opposite party who sent technicians to his residence. The said technicians inspected the fridge and opined that the leg is defective and needs replacement and promised to rectify the same within a short period. The complainant has made repeated calls, SMS and sent emails to the opposite party and the concerned persons of the Bajaj Electronics to rectify the defect but the defect was not rectified. Many a time they did not answer his call. He did not use the fridge for about 45 days even during the lock down period thinking that if he uses it, the opposite party may not replace it. Therefore, he was made to visit the vegetable market frequently under the threat of contacting Covid. In the set of above facts he filed the complaint.

4. The opposite party filed its written version denying all the allegations made against them and contended that the complainant after using the said refrigerator for more than one and half months filed the false complaint with the allegations that after delivery of the refrigerator he found that one leg is different from other three legs and the said leg was slanting with the reason mentioned by him in the complaint but the same is not correct. The transaction between the complainant and this opposite party is limited to the extent of the product as this opposite party is only a dealer and as such he cannot be held liable for the defects or damages. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties who are the manufacturer of the fridge and the authorized service centre. For manufacturing defects the manufacturer is responsible and for repairs if any the complainant has to approach the authorized service centre but not this opposite party. The opposite party further contended that the goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged under any circumstances and the article sold is guaranteed by the manufacturer only. The complaint filed against this opposite party is baseless, frivolous and devoid of any cause of action and therefore, prayed for dismissal.

5. Before the District Commission, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 and Sri Karan Bajaj, authorized signatory of the opposite party Company is examined as DW1.

6. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material on record allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party (i) to rectify the defect in the refrigerator immediately; (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony; (iii) to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation and (iv) time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure of compliance with in the stipulated period the complainant is entitled to a further compensation of Rs.10,0000/- apart from the compensation awarded above.

7. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Commission, the appellant/opposite party filed the appeal FA No.911/2021, with the following grounds:-

• The order of the District Commission is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
• The District Forum ought not to have allowed the complaint as stated supra. The District Forum erroneously appreciate the law and facts and it ought not have held the opposite party responsible for the alleged defect in the fridge as he is only dealer/retail seller of the products of Bajaj Electronics apart from the products of other companies.
• The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint as the complainant did not implead the manufacturer and the service centre of the fridge.

With the above grounds the appellant /opposite party prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides. The complainant in person argued his case. The learned counsel for the opposite party by and large reiterated the quint essence of the version pressed in the written version and grounds of appeal.

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner To what relief

10. To decide the point for consideration we have carefully examined the whole material borne by record and same would manifest that it is a specific case of the complainant that on 28.01.2022, he purchased the Samsung Refrigerator of 476 later capacity from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.52,000/- and the said fridge was delivered to him on 29.01.2022. On delivery he noticed that the left leg of the fridge was different from the other three legs and the same was slanting. He brought the same to the notice of the technician who visited his house for demo and the said technician told him that he would bring the said fact to the notice of the opposite party. He also complained about the same to the opposite party and on such complaint, the opposite party sent his technicians who inspected the fridge and opined that the left leg is defective and needs replacement. Inspite of his repeated request through SMS, emails and telephone calls, the opposite party has failed to rectify the said defect. He also could not use the fridge thinking that the opposite party may not rectify the defect if he uses the same. By the nonuse of the fridge, he was made to go to vegetable market even during the pandemic under the threat of contacting Covid and was subjected to a lot of suffering and mental agony for which he filed the complaint for the reliefs mentioned in the complaint. Not rectifying the defect in the fridge amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

11. But on the other hand, it is the case of the opposite party that he is the dealer/seller of the fridge sold to the complainant and he is not responsible nor held to be liable to rectify the alleged defective leg of the fridge and it is the manufacturer that is laible to rectify the same and in case of any repairs, it is the authorized service certre of the Samsung Company to attend to the same. Moreover, after 1 ½ months use of the fridge, the complainant filed the complaint with the said allegation which is not correct. The District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint making them liable for the same, which is not legal and sustainable under law, as such the said order is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.

12. In the light of above rival contentions we have carefully examined the documentary evidence vide Ex.A1 to A3 relied upon by the complainant to substantiate his case. Ofcourse, though Opposite party did not deny about the sale of the subject fridge as a dealer/seller to the complainant, Ex.A1 bill establishes the purchase of the subject fridge from the opposite party by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.52,000/- on 28.01.2020.

13. As per the complainant, the opposite party delivered the said fridge at the house of the complainant on the next day of the purchase i.e. on 29.01.2020. On such delivery, it is the emphatic version of the complainant that he noticed the left leg of the fridge is different from the other three legs and the same is defective as the fridge was slanting to one side because of the said defective leg and he complained about the same to the opposite party. The version of opposite party that after using of the fridge for 1 ½ months the complainant is making the said allegation which is not correct. This contention of the opposite party falls to the ground as Ex.A2 -SMS message sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A1 shows that the complainant sent the following text message on 03.02.2020.

SMS Message :- “The fridge delivered on 28.01.2020 as per invoice no.by.no.1207/19/E/S-74289 has bent left leg. Please rectify the defect immediately.”

14. The above SMS message sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 03.02.2020 falsifies the contention /version of the opposite party that the complainant made the allegation that the left leg of the subject fridge is defective after using the said fridge for one and half months for the reason that the date of purchase of the fridge was 28.01.2020 and the date of complaint message of the complainant was 03.02.2020 and the same shows that the complainant did not use the fridge for one and half months but made complaint about the defective leg to the opposite party just within five days from the delivery of the fridge to him.

15. Ex.A3 emails sent by the complainant to the opposite party establishes the contention of the complainant that inspite of repeated requests through emails to the opposite party, the said defect of the fridge was not rectified by the opposite party. The said emails show that the complainant sent the said emails to the following persons :-

a) Yaswanth Sales Executive, Bajaj Electronics, Punjagutta, Hyderabad )7013970643).

b) Bajaj Electronics Punjagutta, Hyderabad(040-44427777)

c) Bajaj Electronics Customer Care (7913774834)

d) Samsung Services, Bajaj Electronics, Hyderabad (040- 43570820)

e) Samsung Services, Gurgaon (0120-4887200)

16. Further in Ex.A2 & A3 emails sent by the complainant to the opposite party, the complainant expressed his grievance of the non-rectification of the defective leg of the subject fridge due to which he was constrained to knock the door of the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance. Yet, the opposite party nor the other concerned persons of Bajaj Electronics and Samsung Company have not responded and rectified the said defect due to which the complainant filed the present complaint.

17. In this context it is germane to mention here that the law is no more res-integra as to the liability of a dealer/seller who sells goods such as the fridge in the case on hand, to consumers after receiving the price of the said goods from the consumers i.e. the dealer and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the defects in the goods sold to the consumers. In the case on hand, it is the opposite party who received a sum of Rs.52,000/- from the complainant and sold the subject fridge, as such, as per settled law he cannot escape from the liability of rectifying the defective leg of the fridge. In the case of Harmohinder Singh vsAvula Venkat Reddy (R.P. No.322/2003 decided on 22.03.2007) the Hon’ble National Commission held that “the dealer sells the product to the consumer and the complaint is definitely maintainable against the dealer. If the seller has any grievance, it is free to draw appropriate legal proceedings against the manufacturer to realize the awarded amount from the manufacturer.

18. In view of our aforestated discussion, we are of the considered opinion that non-rectification of the defective leg of the subject fridge by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party due to which the complainant must have undergone suffering and mental agony for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him in his complaint and the District Forum rightly granted the same.

19. View from any angle nothing appears to us to interfere in the order of the District Forum and we confirm the same as such this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.