DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                    Consumer Complaint No.340 of 2016

                                         Date of institution:  07.06.2016                                                Date of decision   :  12.07.2017

Paramjit Singh Bains son of Shri Nirmal Singh resident of House No.1026, Sector 69, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                                                                ….Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Dee Kay Vision Pvt. Limited, SCO No.4-5, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.     Samsung Service Centre, E-160, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Incharge/Manager.

                                                                …..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                OP No.1 ex-parte.

                Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for OP No.2.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant Paramjit Singh has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant purchased from OP No.1 Samsung Fridge – Model RS-21 HFLBG1/XTL for a sum of Rs.81,000/- on 14.05.2010. The fridge was not working properly since beginning. The complainant made to the OPs through online on 27.02.2012 regarding breakage of some articles was redressed by the OPs. The fridge stopped cooling and the complaint made to the OPs through online on 17.04.2015 which has not been properly redressed and the fridge remained defective. Thereafter the complainant made complaints on 21.10.2015, 04.01.2016 and 19.05.2016 but no efforts has been made by the OPs to rectify the defect. Ultimately, the complainant handed over the fridge to OP No.2 on 19.05.2016 which is lying with OP No.2 since then. Due to lack of cooling of the fridge, eatable articles of the complainant valuing Rs.5,000/- have been spoiled. The defect in the fridge occurred during warranty period of 5 years of compressor. The OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice by selling a defective fridge to the complainant. The OPs have refused to the requests of the complainant for replacement of the fridge or to pay the cost of the same. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the fridge or to refund Rs.81,000/- being cost of the fridge; to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment  and   Rs.25,000/- as  costs of litigation.

3.             As per the report retrieved from the site of India post, notice sent to OP No.1 was delivered upon it on 25.11.2016 but none appeared for it. Hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.12.2016.

4.             OP No.2 in the written statement filed by it has taken the preliminary objections that the warranty period of the product was one year which expired on 13.05.2011 as the fridge was purchased on 14.05.2010. The complainant has no where stated that any defect took place during the warranty period. The first complaint referred to by the complainant was made in the month of April, 2015 after a period of 5 years of preaches. Hence it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect or any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. The complaint made in 2012 was regarding breakage and the same was addressed and resolved. On merits, it is pleaded that the various complaints made by the complainant were duly attended to and that the fridge was working properly.  Thus, denying any manufacturing defect in the fridge and deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2; copies of bill Ex.C-1 and complaints Ex.C-2 and C-3. In rebuttal, counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Rana Manager as Ex.OP-2/1.

6.             The complainant has argued that after sometime of purchase, the fridge was not working properly and he made complaints to the OPs for repairs.  Though the engineers of the OPs visited the complainant but the problem in the fridge is still subsisting and ultimately he handed over the fridge to OP No.2 and is still lying with OP No.2. The complainant has argued that there is manufacturing defect in the fridge which needs to be replaced or in the alternative its cost be got refunded to him alongwith compensation for harassment and costs of litigation.

7.             Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the fridge was purchased by the complainant on 14.05.2010 and there was warranty of one year for it and 5 years warranty for the compressor. The complainant did not make any complaint during the warranty period. Even the complaints made subsequent thereto were duly attended to by its engineers and the fridge was working properly.  Learned counsel for OP No.2 has further argued that there is no expert report produced by the complainant to prove that the fridge has any manufacturing defect.  In support of this contention, learned counsel for OP No.2 has relied upon decision of Hon’ble National Commission in  Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobiles & Anr. Revision Petition Nos.3973 and 3974 of 2012 decided on 06.11.2012 wherein it was held that the report of expert was essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect should have been adduced. The mere fact that the vehicle was taken to the service station, for one or two times does not ipso facto, prove the manufacturing defect.

8.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of OP No.2 as well as oral arguments of the parties. The complainant has purchased the fridge on 14.05.2010. As per the OP No.2 it carries warranty of one year which expired on 13.05.2011. As per own stand of the complainant the first complaint regarding the fridge was made by him on 27.02.2012 and that too was regarding breakage. The complainant has not produced the warranty card of the fridge in question. Documents Ex.C-2 and C-3 i.e. acknowledgement of service request produced by the complainant show that the column of ‘out of warranty’ has been ticked.  The OP No.2 has stated that it has attended the complaints made by complainant in the year 2012, 2015 and 2016 and the fridge was found to be properly working.  The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show that the fridge has any manufacturing defect.  Thus, the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobiles & Anr (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

9.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions and case law, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 12.07.2017    

                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                          President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member