(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This is complainant’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, thereby dismissing his consumer complaint No. 366 of 2012.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 05.11.2007, the complainant had purchased one whirlpool refrigerator 32 maxigerator from the opposite party No. 1 for sum of Rs. 15,850/-.  At the time of purchase of the refrigerator, the complainant was assured about the quality and life of the refrigerator and that the refrigerator would long for 20 years and also that the refrigerator is of superior quality.  It was alleged that certain defects started occurring in the refrigerator.  The refrigerator was got repaired on 01.07.2011 on payment of sum of Rs. 1,020/- by the complainant.  On further complaint being lodged, the representative of the opposite party No. 1 visited the house of the complainant, who was told that cracks have developed in the inner body of the refrigerator and the representative of the opposite party No. 1 told that the same is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.  The complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party No. 1 on 14.08.2012 to remove the defects in the refrigerator, but to no avail.  It was further alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.   

3.       The opposite party No. 1 did not appear before the District Forum and the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1.  The opposite party No. 2 – manufacturing company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that that there is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator; that the refrigerator carried warranty of only one year, which had already expired on 04.11.2008; that the complaint was lodged by the complainant in the month of July, 2011 after the expiry of warranty period and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 12.03.2013.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.      

5.       None appeared on behalf of respondents.  We have heard the appellant – complainant in person and have also perused the record.   

6.       The order-sheet of the consumer complaint indicates that on 30.01.2013, the date fixed in the consumer complaint, the opposite party No. 2 filed written statement, which was taken on record by the District Forum.  As is stated above, the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1.  On 30.01.2013, the District Forum had fixed 08.03.2013 for the evidence of the complainant and on the said date, the complainant had filed his evidence, which was taken on record and the arguments were heard and 12.03.2013 was fixed for delivery of judgment and on the said date, the judgment was delivered. 

7.       The appellant – complainant has stated that on 30.01.2013, he along with his pairokar was present before the District Forum, but was not supplied the copy of the written statement filed by the opposite party No. 2 on 30.01.2013 and none was also present on behalf of opposite party No. 2 when the case was called out and he was told that 08.03.2013 has been fixed for his evidence. 

8.       We need not feel into the controversy as to whether anybody was present on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum on 30.01.2013 when the case was called out or not and whether the appellant – complainant was not supplied the copy of the said written statement.  But the fact remains that the appellant – complainant was afforded opportunity by the District Forum to file evidence in support of his case and which was filed by him on 08.03.2013 and the same was duly considered by the District Forum.  Even otherwise, the order-sheet dated 30.01.2013 shows that the parties were present when the case was called out.

9.       So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the refrigerator in question was purchased by the appellant – complainant on 05.11.2007 and as per the own allegations of the complainant, he had lodged the complaint with regard to the refrigerator on 01.07.2011.  The warranty of the refrigerator was for one year only and the same had expired on 04.11.2008.  The opposite party No. 2 has stated that after the expiry of warranty of one year, only the compressor of the refrigerator carried guarantee of five years’ and no other part of the refrigerator carried warranty beyond a period of one year from the date of the purchase of the refrigerator.

10.     The appellant – complainant has not filed any evidence to suggest that cracks have developed in the body of the refrigerator.  The complainant has also not filed any evidence to show that the body of the refrigerator carried warranty of five years’.  There is also nothing on record to show that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.  When the complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, it was incumbent upon him to prove the same by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in that regard, but he has not filed any such evidence. 

11.     The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference and the appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

12.     For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

(SMT. VEENA SHARMA)                        (D.K. TYAGI)                         (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)

K