Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/341/2014

Dr.Rameshwar Ladra S/o Kartara Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aarti Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 341 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution:12.08.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 22.04.2016.

Dr. Rameshwar Ladra aged about 62 years son of Shri Kartara Ram resident of village Shahpur, P.O. Bherthal, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Aarti Agencies, Opp. Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar-135001 ( Haryana) through its Partner/ Proprietor.
2. Whirlpool of India Limited, Plot No.A-4, M.I.D.C., Rajangaon, Taluka- Shirur, District Pune, ( Maharashtra)-419204, India through its M.D. /Director.

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.  

              Respondent No.1 alrady ex-parte.

              Sh. V.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Dr. Rameshwar Ladra has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had purchased one refrigerator make whirlpool 410 litres on 18.04.2010 from the respondent No. 1 (herein after referred as OP No.1) who is the dealer of OP No.2 manufacturer for a sum of Rs. 34,000/- vide sale invoice No. 1571 dated 18.04.2010. At the time of purchasing the refrigerator in question, Op No.1 gave 5 years guarantee and assured the complainant that double door fridge in question is one of the best quality. The refrigerator in question worked properly for 3 years only and thereafter the refrigerator in question is not working properly i.e. below door of the refrigerator is not cooling. The complainant intimated the Op No.1 in this regard who sent his mechanic to repair it properly. The mechanic of the OP No.1 opened the below portion of the fridge in question and tried his best to repair it but failed to do so. The said mechanic was too lazy that he did not fit the opened parts of the fridge and till now refrigerator in question is still lying in the open condition. Due to non-cooling the below door of refrigerator, the complainant cannot keep his eatable items in the fridge for himself or his family members. The complainant for the last 3 months have been visiting the show room of OP No.1 and requesting him to repair it properly, but all in vain. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to replace the refrigerator in question with new one or refund the amount of Rs. 34,000/- with interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. Affidavit to this effect filed and tendered into evidence original bill bearing No. 157 dated 18.4.2010.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.12.2014. OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. The complaint of the complainant was properly attended by the Engineer of the authorized service station but he himself refused to pay the cost of core board as well as labour cost to the service engineer, complainant has not disclosed the true facts and mis-stating that refrigerator in question was having one year comprehensive warranty and additional four years of the compressor only and on merit, it has been admitted that OP No.2 received a complaint No. HR0412007204 on 18.04.2012 and it was duly attended and service engineer found that THE CORE BOARD  need to be changed. As refrigerator was not in comprehensive warranty, so, it has to be paid service as well as customer has to bear the cost of part. When this fact was told to the complainant, he simply refused to get it replaced. The complainant even did not bother to pay the visiting fees to the Service Engineer. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being false and wrong. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities, hence his evidence was closed by court order on dated 28.10.2015 whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shivani Singh as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. However, during the course of argument, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered photo copy of terms and conditions of the warranty card and photo copy of service request dated 18.04.2012.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have gone through the contents of complaint, reply as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     From the perusal of contents of para No.4 of complaint, it is clear that the refrigerator in question worked properly for three (3) years from the date of its purchase. As per version of the Service Engineer of OPs, Core Board of the refrigerator was defective and need to be changed. However, it is not the case of the complainant that the CORE BOARD was having any manufacturing defect from its very beginning and was covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty of five years. Even no expert report/mechanic report has been filed by complainant to prove that the said Core Board was having manufacturing defect, whereas from the perusal of terms and conditions of the warranty card filed by the OP No.2 it is clear that the refrigerator in question was having one year comprehensive warranty and four (4) years warranty on compressor only.

                        As the complainant has failed to prove his case by filing any expert report/ mechanic report that refrigerator in question was having any manufacturing defect and the same was covered under its warranty. So, we are unable to hold that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant being devoid of merit.

7.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 22.04.2016.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER