DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.211/4.12.08 Decided on : 26.5.2009 Sh. Darshan Kumar son of Sh. Amar Nath, resident of Ward No. 5, Pandit Jagdish Wali Gali, Link Road, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Delux Radio Service, Cinema Road, Mansa. 2.Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd., First Floor, C.N. Tower, Opposite Hotel Shevron, Ludhiana (Punjab). 3.Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd., 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower 61, Nehru Palance, New Delhi-110019(India). ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. .... Present: Sh. R.P. Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. Sadhu Singh Dandiwal, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.1. Sh. P.K.Spolia, Advocate counsel for opposite parties no. 2 & 3. Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. 1. This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Darshan Kumar, son of Sh. Amar Nath, resident of Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against Dexlux Radio Service, Mansa and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana and New Delhi, for giving direction, to the opposite parties, to replace washing machine, purchased by him, with machine of same design, with further direction, to pay him compensation, in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of filing of complaint in, the sum of Rs. 1,500/-. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:- 2. That he purchased washing machine, manufactured by Contd....2... : 2 : Samsung India Private Ltd. Co. of Model WT8502, Bill No. 703494, from OP No. 1. At the time of sale, of the said washing machine, dealer of the manufacturing company, given warranty to complainant, for proper functioning thereof, for a period of two years, but it caught rust, after some time, about which the complainant gave intimation to OP No. 1, who recorded entry, in complaint register, at Serial No. 495 of 26.7.2008, but the opposite party, has not paid any heed, to the complaint, lodged by the complainant, who has spent Rs. 6,850/-, for the purchase of machine. As such, the complainant, has been subjected, to mental and physical harassment and has incurred, unavoidable expenses, for the instant complaint. Hence the complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the OP No. 1, filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no locus standi, to file the complaint; that the complaint is barred, by limitation and has been filed, by concocting the facts, with intention to harass, the OP No. 1; that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the factum, of sale of washing machine, to the complainant, is admitted, but it is denied, that any warranty was given, for successful functioning, of the machine, purchased by the complainant, by answering opposite party. It is submitted, that on being approached, by the complainant, his machine, was checked, by Sh. Raj Kumar, employed by OP No. 1 and on his report cabinet thereof, was replaced, but thereafter complainant, has never approached, the answering opposite party, with any defect, in his washing machine, which is of best in quality, at the time of sale, but he has failed to, properly maintain the same because of which, it might have been caught rust. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal, of the complaint, with costs. 4. The OP No. 2 & 3, also filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi, to file the complaint; that the complaint, is not maintainable, as it has been filed, by concocting the material facts, from the knowledge of Contd...3.... : 3 : the Forum. On merits, it is denied, for want of knowledge, that the complainant has purchased, washing machine, from OP No. 1, by answering opposite parties. It is submitted, that warranty for a period of two years, is generally given by the dealer, of the answering opposite parties, at the time of sale of the machine, manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. It is submitted, that cabinet of machine, purchased, by the complainant, was replaced, as informed by OP No. 1, on lodging of complaint, but it is denied, that there is any deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal, of the complaint, with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant furnished his affidavit, copies of documents Ext. C-1 to C-5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP No.1, tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar, Ext. OP-1, affidavit of Devinder Paul, Ext.OP-2, copies of documents, Ext. OP-3 to OP-4 and closed his evidence. No evidence was produced, on behalf of OP No. 2 & 3. 5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. Rajinder Parshad Sharma, Advocate, has submitted, that as admitted in the written version, filed by the opposite parties, the cabinet of the washing machine, purchased by the complainant, was replaced but defect therein, has not been removed, to the satisfaction of the complainant, as such there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, for which they are liable to pay costs and compensation, as demanded in the complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant, has placed reliance on 1994(1) CLT 128, Matthew M. Puliyel Versus M/s Indian Gas Cylinders and another, wherein washing machine, was repaired to some extent, by the mechanic of the opposite party, but not to the satisfaction of the complainant and it was held, that consumer cannot be allowed, to suffer on the ground, that Contd....4.... : 4 : opposite party, has to spent considerable amount, for repair of machine, purchased by him. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No. 1 Sh. Sadhu Singh Dandiwal, Advocate, has submitted, that after replacement of the cabinet, of the washing machine, purchased by the complainant, he has not served, any notice upon the opposite parties nor he lodged any complaint, before filing of the instant complaint, after lapse of considerable time. Learned counsel has argued, that no expert evidence, has been produced, on record, by the complainant, to prove, that the washing machine purchased, by him still suffered from any defect, as such complaint is false and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed, with costs. At this stage, learned counsel for the OP No. 2 & 3, Sh. P.K. Spolia, Advocate, has submitted, that complainant has failed, to prove any manufacturing defect, to the washing machine purchased by him, from OP No. 1, as such no liability can be fastened, upon OP No. 2 & 3, just on the basis of his affidavit alone, especially when their dealer has replaced the cabinet, within the warranty period, on lodging of complaint filed by him. 8. We find merit, in the argument advanced, by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, because the complainant has admittedly, purchased, washing machine vide bill No. 1080, Ext. C-1 on 29.10.2007. As per copy of job card, Ext. OP-3, cabinet of the said washing machine, was replaced, by OP No. 1, on 16.12.2008 and complainant has expressed, his satisfaction. The complainant has filed, the complaint on 4.12.2008 and written version filed by OP No. 1 on 10.2.2009, as such cabinet of the washing machine, has been replaced by the opposite parties after filing of the complaint, to the satisfaction of the complainant, on being approached by him. The complainant has not produced, any evidence, to prove, his claim, that he has lodged, complaint, on 25.7.2008. He has taken specific plea, in the complaint, about making of such complaint, with the OP No. 1 in the register, maintained, for the said purpose at Serial No. 495 dated 26.7.2008. He has not made, any effort, to prove the said entry, even with the assistance of this Forum. The complainant has also not examined, any Contd....5.... : 5 : expert after filing of the complaint and any other defect in the washing machine, purchased by him, still persists. He has not disclosed, the factum of replacement of cabinet, of the washing machine, by the opposite parties, even in the affidavit Ext. C-1, tendered in his evidence. He has also not submitted therein, that his washing machine, still persists from any other defect. 9. In the light of above discussion and action taken by the OP No. 1, before filing of his written version, replacement of cabinet, of the washing machine, purchased by the complainant, we have come to the conclusion, that no indulgence of this Forum is warranted. We have carefully gone through authority relied upon by the complainant. The facts and circumstances thereof, are distinguishable, from those of the facts of the case in hand. In the said authority, District Forum passed the order, on 31.7.1990, on the basis of compromise, between the parties, under which the opposite party agreed to set right the washing machine, purchased by the complainant, but thereafter, they failed to do so, then complainant sent 32 letters, within a period of one year three months. In the instant case, no such notice has proved, to have been served by the complainant, on the opposite parties, after removal of the defect, in his machine. He has not brought, the factum of replacement of cabinet, of his washing machine, to the notice of the Forum and has not disclosed, the said subsequent development, even in his affidavit, Ext. C-1, tendered in his evidence, on 19.2.2009. Therefore, ratio of judgment delivered in the said authority, is of no assistance so far, as his case is concerned. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 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: 26.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
