Punjab

Sangrur

CC/467/2016

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganpati Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  467

                                                Instituted on:    27.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       21.12.2016

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Ram Krishan R/O H.No.466, Street No.2, Khalifa Bagh, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Ganpati Enterprises, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Prop. Owner/partner.

2.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its authorised officer.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, SCO 4&5, Sector-8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its authorised officer.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Shri  J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Kuldeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung refrigerator for Rs.11,500/- from OP number 1 vide invoice number 786 dated 4.10.2015, which was having a warranty of five years.  It is further averred that the above said refrigerator was given to the sister of the complainant on her marriage and sent at Tapa Mandi, where she has been married.  It is further averred that since the marriage was in the month of October, 2015, the whether was not so hot as such the refrigerator was used less and its cooling was at slow speed.  The grievance of the complainant is that in the month of May, 2015, when the sister of the complainant put the refrigerator on full cooling mode, it did not give proper cooling, as such, the complainant approached OP number 1 and lodged the complaint to OP number 1, who further stated to lodge the complaint at toll free number.  The complainant thereafter lodged the complaint on 15.6.2015 and this time Er. Amandeep visited the premises and after checking the device physically told that some parts need to be changed which were changed accordingly.  But, even after changing of some parts, the refrigerator is not still working properly and cooling is not proper.  It is stated that the refrigerator in question is suffering from manufacturing defect. The refrigerator in question was brought back to Sangrur by the complainant at his residence at his own cost. It is further stated that despite all the repairs, the refrigerator is not working properly and cooling is on the lower side. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one of the same model or to refund the whole price paid by the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was  proceeded exparte on 08.09.2016.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OPs 2 number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the refrigerator in question is perfectly working when it was last serviced on 16.6.2016, that the complainant has sought refund or replacement of the refrigerator, which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms of warranty, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question vide bill dated 4.10.2015 for Rs.11,500/- from OP number 1.  It is denied that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs for consideration. It is denied that there is any defect in the refrigerator.  It is also denied that the refrigerator in question has been brought back at Sangrur from Tapa Mandi. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of invitation card, Ex.C-3 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 & 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice dated 04.10.2015 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the refrigerator in question for Rs.11,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question and availed the services of the OP number 1.

 

7.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the refrigerator in question was defective and was not giving proper cooling from the very date of its purchase i.e. 4.10.2015.  Further it is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant lodged the complaint on the toll free number of the Ops on 15.6.2016, but the stand of the OPs is that the refrigerator in question was repaired on 15.6.2016 to the full satisfaction of the complainant.  The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that thereafter the complainant never lodged any complaint with OPs regarding the cooling problem.  We have also perused the whole proceedings including the complaint, evidence of the complainant, but did not found any such document complaining/lodging any defect in the refrigerator.  Further the complainant has produced nothing on record such as expert opinion or any expert report regarding the manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question.  Further it is the own case of the complainant that the refrigerator in question was given on the marriage of his sister, who was married at Tapa Mandi.  In the circumstances, we feel that since the complainant was not having the refrigerator in question in his possession, his complaint is not at all maintainable.  As such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to produce cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to establish his complaint case.  In the circumstances, we find that it is not a case of deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 21, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                  

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member