Delhi

East Delhi

CC/834/2013

GURINDER SINGH SURI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ELECTRONIC PARADISE - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI-92

[

CC No.834 / 2013:

In the matter of:

Sh. Gurinder Singh Suri

S/o. Sardar Balwant Singh Suri

R/o. 42-A, South Anarkali Extension,

Krishna Nagar,

Delhi – 110 051        

         Complainant

Vs

1. M/s. Electronic Paradise (North)

E – 57, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. Kaiser Electronics

Door No.455, Patparganj Industrial Area,

Delhi – 110 092

                                                                                         Respondents

 

                                                   Date of Admission-30/09/2013

                                                    Date of Order        -15/01/2016

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra (Member):

The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 19/05/2013, the complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator bearing No.RT42FDAGASL/TL for Rs.44,000/-from Respondent No.1and it was carrying a guarantee of one year and 10 year warranty.  It is alleged that just within four months of its purchase the said refrigerator became defective and on 10/09/2013 a complaint was lodged at the Customer Care of the respondent vide No. 8453530368.After personal visits and telephonic reminders the engineer of the respondent visited twice and told that the door of the refrigerator is defective.  The complainant alleges that the respondent is demanding Rs.2,100/- to rectify the alleged defect despite the fact that the refrigerator is under warranty.  The complainant also alleges to have lodged a complaint with the Samsung Company.  The complainant alleges that he had requested the respondents for the replacement of the said refrigerator but they refused to replace it.  He has prayed for refund of Rs.44,000/-, the cost of the refrigerator  together with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and financial loss or in the alternative he has prayed for the replacement of the said refrigerator with a refrigerator with handle and compensation for physical & mental harassment.

            Notices were issued to the respondents but despite putting up appearance no written statements filed by them.

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the allegations made by him in his complaint.

Heard & perused the record.

The fact of purchase of Samsung Refrigerator Model No.SAM REF RT42FDAGASL/TL vide Retail Invoice No.VM/R-0840/2013-14 dated 19/05/2013 for Rs.44,000/- from the Respondent No.I is not in dispute.  It is a settled principle of law that one who raises an allegation has to prove it beyond doubt. Except for the copy of the Retail Invoice the complainant has not filed on record any cogent documentary evidence that just within four months of its purchase the said refrigerator became defective and on 10/09/2013 he had lodged a complaint at the Customer Care of the respondent.  Not an iota of evidence has been filed on record by the complainant to substantiate his allegations that door of the refrigerator in question was suffering from alleged defects and despite having approached the respondents for the rectification of the alleged defects in the said refrigerator neither they have rectified the alleged defects nor replaced it.  Further, he has also not filed on record the proof of the fact that the engineer of the respondent visited twice and had told him that the door of the refrigerator was defective and the respondents had demanded Rs.2,100/- from the complainant for rectifying the alleged defects.  It is also not the case of the complainant that despite demanding the job-sheets from the engineer on both the occasions he had refused to issue the same to him.  In the absence of any credible documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint it is hard to believe the allegations made in the complaint and the same, are thus, not acceptable to us. 

Taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration, the complainant has failed to make out a case against the respondent under the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The present complaint deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

(Dr.P.N.Tiwari)                                  (Poonam Malhotra)                                   (N.A.Zaidi)

      Member                                                   Member                                            President