PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 31.10.2005 the complainant purchased a Videocon refrigerator from the OPs for Rs.8,990/-and the OPs gave warranty of six years on the compressor.  However, the refrigerator suffered from manufacturing defect. She complained the matter to OP-1 and thereafter to OP-3, i.e. the service center, whose engineer visited her house, prepared job sheet dated 5.2.2010 and charged Rs.1250/- but even after repair the fridge did not work properly.  She made number of complaints but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Summons sent to OP-1 were received back with the report of refusal and since refusal is good serve and none appeared on its behalf, therefore, OP-1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.             Initially OP-2 was represented by their counsel/ representative, however, on 7.9.2010 neither the reply and evidence was filed nor anybody appeared on their behalf, hence they were proceeded against exparte.

4.             In their written reply OP-3 admitted the factual matrix.  However, it has been denied that the same suffered from any manufacturing defect. It has been stated that the problem of cooling was not due to any manufacturing defect but due to handling of the refrigerator without proper care and precaution due to which the gas of the refrigerator leaked.  It has been admitted that the engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant and charged Rs.1250/- which were the service and gas refilling charges as the refrigerator was out of warranty. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.             We have heard the complainant in person and Adv. for OP-3 and have also perused the record. 

7.             The complainant has produced Annexure C-1 dated 31.10.2005 to prove that he purchased a brand new Videocon refrigerator from OP-1 and Annexure-3 shows that the said refrigerator carried a warranty of one year + full six years warranty for the compressor. The main grouse of the complainant is that the aforesaid refrigerator became defective on 05.02.2010, which was informed to the OP-1, whereupon a mechanic of OP-3 (service centre of OP-1) was sent, who prepared the job sheet card Annexure C-2 dated 05.02.2010 and repaired the refrigerator and charged Rs.1250/- but then also it did not work properly.

8.             On the other hand, OP-3 admitted that the refrigerator had carried a warranty of one year on the machine and six years on the compressor.  It is also admitted that on the complaint of the complainant the refrigerator was repaired on 05.02.2010, when Rs.1250/- were charged from the complainant vide Annexure C-2. The contention of the OP-3 is that infact there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator but on 05.02.2010, only the gas was refilled, which was beyond the warranty period of one year and therefore the complainant was liable to pay the service as well as gas refilling charges.

9.             After going through the record very carefully, we find that the gas was refilled by the engineer of OP-3 vide job sheet card Annexure C-2 dated 05.02.2010 for which Rs.1250/- as service and gas refilling charges were charged from the complainant. The refrigerator was purchased in 2005 and the complaint regarding the defect was lodged by the complainant to the OPs in 2010, i.e. after a long period of about five years, which clearly shows that during the period from 2005 to 2010, the refrigerator was working properly, hence, at this stage, the complainant cannot claim that there was a manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, the complainant should have reported the same before 5.02.2010 but admittedly it is not in the present case, which clearly shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.

10.           It is pertinent to mention that as per warranty terms and conditions Annexure C-3, the complainant was entitled for warranty of six years on the compressor only and for one year on the machine. In the present case, it has no where been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint, that there was a defect in the compressor. Therefore, keeping in mind the warranty terms and conditions Annexure C-3, we are of the view that Rs.1,250/- were rightly charged from the complainant towards the service and gas refilling charges as it was not under warranty except for its compressor.  Otherwise also, refilling of the gas cannot be presumed as a defect in the refrigerator. Except Annexure C-2, that too is the job card for gas refilling, the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence or expert/technical opinion to prove that there was a manufacturing defect or any other defect in the refrigerator or its compressor. Hence, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the oral assertions of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration against the OPs, to hold them liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

11.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. There is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                       Sd/-                               sd/-