DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.105/01.08.2008 Decided on : 29.04.2009 Rajinder Kumar S/o Sh. Zila Ram, resident of Dayalpura Road, By-pass Dairewala, Ward No.11, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Sh.Amritpal S/o Sh.Laxmi Dass, resident of Bareta, Proprietor M/s Laxmi Electronics, Branch Bahadarpur, Head office Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.The Managing Director, Samsung India Limited, SCO No.4,5, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 exparte. Sh.P.K.Sapolia, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Zila Ram, resident of Bareta, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against Sh.Amritpal S/o Sh.Laxmi Dass, Proprietor M/s Laxmi Electronics, Branch Bahadarpur, and Managing Director, Samsung India Limited, Chandigarh, on the Contd........2 : 2 : averments which may briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant, has purchased a fridge, in the sum of Rs.15,990/- vide bill No.371 dated 26.8.2007, from the OP No.1. The fridge purchased by the complainant, neither freezed ice nor functioned properly from the very beginning, due to manufacturing defect therein. The complainant made attempts to get the defect removed from the OP No.1 once or twice but he failed to remove the defect, which was inherent. The complainant also asked him to replace the fridge, but he prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant even served notice dated 14.8.2008 upon the opposite parties, but no action, has been taken by them to remove the manufacturing defect in his fridge. The complainant, has suffered, because of the manufacturing defect in the fridge, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part for which direction be given to them, to replace the fridge or to refund the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and another sum of Rs.1500/- on account of amount incurred by the complainant for filing the complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.9.2008. On the other hand, the OP No.2 filed written version resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that it is misconceived and not maintainable; that this Forum, has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, because as per the terms and conditions contained in the card of warranty, it is binding on the part of the parties and the courts in New Delhi, has exclusive jurisdiction over the matters covered by supply of products manufactured by the answering opposite party; that there is no defect in the fridge purchased by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party; that the complainant has misrepresented the facts before the Forum which is abuse of process of law and misuse of the Contd........3 : 3 : provisions of the Act; that complainant, has no locus standi, to file the complaint and, has not served notice upon the opposite parties before filing the complaint, which has been filed just to harass the answering opposite party; that answering opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant due to any loss suffered by him especially when he has failed to proof loss or injury is a sine qua non for the award of compensation. On merits, it is not denied that the complainant, has purchased a fridge manufactured by OP No.2, from OP No.1, but it is submitted that he be put to strict proof. However, it is denied that fridge purchased by the complainant started giving troubles from the very beginning or did not function properly. It is submitted that the products manufactured by OP No.2 are put to extensive quality control and checks before they are sold in the market, as such, there is no question of development of any defect therein. The complainant, has neither approached nor filed any complaint before the answering opposite party, so far as any defect in his fridge, is concerned. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, learned counsel for the complainant furnished his affidavit Ext.C-1 and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-6 and closed evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party No.2 tendered in evidence copies of documents Ext.OP-1 to OP-3 and closed evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the complainant alone, with his kind assistance. 6. Before the matter could be disposed of on merits, after hearing the arguments, the parties entered into compromise, in terms of which Sh. P.K.Sapolia, Advocate, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, suffered statement on 29.4.2009, to the effect that his client undertakes to remove the defect in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant through Contd........4 : 4 : the Opposite Party No.1 upto 20.05.2009 and in case the said defect is not removed, by the date given, then his refrigerator, may be replaced with a new refrigerator, of the same description by his client through the Opposite Party No.1, who is his dealer. Thereafter, Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, made a statement that the matter be disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Since the parties have affected compromise, as stated above, the complaint stands disposed of. However, the Opposite Party No.2, shall remain bound by the statement, suffered by his counsel, in terms of compromise and shall replace the refrigerator purchased by the complainant, with a new refrigerator of same description, in case defect therein, is not removed, by the stipulated date, subject to deposit of refrigerator purchased by him in his pososession. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 29.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
