MRS.RAJASHREE AGARWALLA,MEMBER:-

                                  Unfair Trade Practice/Deficiency in service in respect of manufacturing defect and non-replacement of Automatic washing machine are the allegations arrayed against Ops.

2.                                  Complaint, in nutshell reveals that complainant for his domestic use purchase one Automatic Washing machine manufactured by SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD. (OP No.2) having model No. WA70M40,10HP. The said washing machine was purchased on dtd. 08.01.2014 from Distributor i.e, ABHIRAM DISTRIBUTOR, Kendrapara vide Retail invoice no. 2980. It is alleged that after purchase, the said washing machine remains non-functional for several times, in-spite of the complaint before Ops it yield no result. Complainant lastly on 18.09.2015 made on complaint of non-functioning of the washing machine, but the technician of the Ops failed to repair the washing machine in-spite of their best effort. It is further alleged that such non-functioning of the washing machine occurs during the existence of the warranty period as there was inherent manufacturing defects same could not be eradicated, for which complainant is deprived of availing  its utility and sustaining a financial loss of Rs.30/- per day for washing charges of cloths for his and has family members. The cause of action of instant case arose on 08.01.2014 when the washing machine was purchased and lastly on dtd. 18/09/2015, when the Ops failed to rectify the same. The complainant is filed with prayer for replacement of the washing machine and compensation of Rs. 30/- per day from date of purchase to till the replacement of the machine along with cost of litigation.                                                                                                                               

3.            Being noticed Op No.1 ABHIRAM DISTRIBUTOR, Kendrapara appeared into the dispute but did not file any written statement, accordingly set ex-parte on 24/10/2016. SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD.(Op No.2) the manufacturing company appeared into the dispute and filed written statement. The written statement in brief reveals that complaint purchased one fully Automatic front loading washing machine from Op no.1 on 08.01.2014 by paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and warranty of this washing machine covers for a period of two years from the date of purchase. The washing machine is               running smoothly till-date. It is averred that for the first time on 26.01.2015 and on 18.09.2015 on allegation of complainant the company’s service centre at Kendrapara attended the complainant and the complainant & his family members on the above dates told the service Engineer that they are facing trouble in operating the said washing machine and needs a semi-Automatic washing machine on its replacement. The family members also disclosed they are habituated with semi-automatic washing machine, the service Engineer of Ops gave a demonstration operation of the washing machine but complainant was not ready to accept the disputed washing machine, It is further averred that the Ops customer service centre was not able to comply the grievance of complainant regarding replacement rather they suggested that Op no.1 distributor/dealer is only empowered to replace the washing machine within 7-15 days of the date of purchase. It is categorically stated of the written statement that the said washing machine was not any inherent manufacturing defect and till-date it is functioning normally in addition Ops state that whenever the complaint raised any complainant the local authorized service center provides prompt and quick service to the complainant.          

                                 Thus the complainant with an ulterior motive has filed thus case, and due to lack of operational knowledge of the complainant and his family member foisted a false case against the OP-party, which is to be dismissed with exemplary cost and the provisions of Sec.26 of CP Act,1986 be imposed on the complainant for filing such a false case against Op No.2-company.

4.           Heard the arguments advanced by complainant and Ld. Counsel for contesting Op no.2. It is an admitted fact that complainant on 08.01.2014 purchased an automatic washing machine manufactured by SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD. from Op No.1 Abhiram Distributor, Kendrapara by paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/- . It is also admitted that the said washing machine covers a warranty 2 years from the date of purchase. The complaint is filed on allegation of manufacturing defect in the said washing machine, which needs to be replaced. In support complainant is files Xerox copy of Retail invoice (one sheet), Daily call register (one sheet) and Xerox copy of warranty card (one sheet) . It is alleged that in-spite of repair of washing machine on dt. 18.09.2015, the disputed washing machine is not functioning properly. On the other hand contesting allegations OP No.2 the manufacturing company stated that, whenever they received any complaint the local authorized service centre provides quick service and as per the opinion of the technician of service centre, the disputed washing machine is defect a free one and due to lack of operational knowledge of Automatic washing machine the complainant and his family members wants replace the disputed washing machine. It is also the submission of the contesting Ops that complainant has lost the opportunity to replace the washing machine which is provided by the contesting company within 7-15 days of purchase.                                                                                               

            Now the question before us that, whether the disputed washing machine was having any inherent manufacturing defect or not? The claim of replacement of disputed washing machine whether sustainable on eye of law or not? Complainant-consumer to substantiate his allegation files only a copy of daily call register which deals with the complaint details of the customer, no expert evidence or any written complaint to contesting Ops are filed for decision of the case except a wild allegation of manufacturing defect which are not eradicated in-spite of the repair. It is the settle principle of law that burden of proof lies with the complainant, he has to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. This Forum can’t liable the contesting Ops including OP No.1-retailor for Unfair Trade practice or deficiency in service in absence of substantial evidence of manufacturing defect. According the claim for replacement of washing machine is not sustainable for observation is supported by the Hon’ble National CDR Commission in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd.-Vrs- Shri Ajwant Singh another reported in 2014(3) CPR 724(NC) where the Hon’ble National Commission opined that “Manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion”.

                                    However, considering the grievance of the complainant-consumer it will be more practical that the contesting Ops to give a demonstration  of the subject washing machine regarding proper functioning in the presence of the complainant or mechanic expert of complainant’s choice, if any if any defect detects same should be eradicated by the effort of the contesting Ops.

                       With this observations, we disposed of the complaint without any cost.

                        Pronounced today in the open Court this 8th day of December,2016.