ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
The complainants purchased a refrigerator from OP -1 on 5.8.2012 for a sum of Rs.8500/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the refrigerator is not cooling the edibles satisfactory, the ice and the Kulfi does not freeze in the freezer even while working the whole night. The complainant lodged complaint with the customer care cell of LG a number of times, it is alleged by the complainant that despite making a number of complainants and even writing registered letter to Hindustan Trader Co. & LG Co. regarding the unsatisfactory performance of the refrigerator nothing has been done by the OPs besides giving falls assurance to remove the defects in the refrigerator. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.
The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. The OP has claimed that the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action, as all the complaints made by the complainant on various dates were duly attended by the service engineer through their respective job sheet found no defects in the refrigerator. It would be of benefit to reproduce Para 6 of the written statement. It reads as under:-
That the contents of para 6 are wrong and denied. It is submitted here that the complainant had given the complaint to the concerned department on 26.4.2013 and immediately on the same day the service engineer visited to the complainant home, set check, set working OK but the customer/complainant adamant to replacement & customer/complaint not give/provide the bill copy. (Copy of job sheet No. RNA1304260425 dated 26.4.2013 is Annexed R-1) second complaint dated 28.5.2013 vide job No. RNA130528095215, it is stated that service centre found duplicate call & third complaint vide RNA130529066889 dated 29.5.2013, the same was attended on the next day service engineer Spoke with the complainant and he refused for visit, he said he want to change his FRIDGE or want money back, without any fault/inspection of the FRIDGE and thereafter, no further complaint was made by the complainant regarding any grievances till the filling of present complaint. The complainant has to put strict proof for the same with regard to the averment made in the para. (Copy of job sheets are Annexed R-1 to R-5)
We have heard argument advanced at bar and have perused the record.
The Ld. Counsel for the OP has contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as the refrigerator in question is not a defected one. Counsel for the OP has therefore contended that every time when the complainant was lodged by the complaint a service engineer visited the site of the complainant and checked the refrigerator and it was found to be OK. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record the copies of Job sheet a perusal of which clearly shows that the OP had duly entertained the complaints of the complainant and had provided due service. The refrigerator was found to be in OK conditions.
In number of cases it was held by the Apex Court that where the complaint of the complainant were duly and promptly attended to by the answering OP and no reliable evidence was produced by the Complainant in support of his case that he suffered a loss due to in convenience caused to him. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. (see Punjab Tractor Ltd. V/s Vir Pratap (1997) 11 CPJ 81 (NC)
In the present case as well, the answering OP has taken care of the complaint of the complainant which has been proved by the Job sheets placed on record (R-1 to R-5) and has therefore never been deficient in the services provided to the complainant.
We therefore find no truth in the story put forth by the complainant. We find no merit in the complaint which is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
