BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Kiran Aggarwal, R/o H. No. 2013, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh .

…..Complainant….

                           V E R S U S

1]    Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. 213, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

2.    Gupta Electric Company, SCO 1117, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                                  Opposite parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

                                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Ajay Kumar Nara, Counsel for complainant.

                 OPs ex parte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER 

             Briefly stating the case of the complainant is that he purchased a three door refrigerator having model 366 on 12.5.2008 from the company of OP No.1 through its dealer OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Annexure C-1). At the time of purchase, it was conveyed that the refrigerator of Hitachi Company are trouble free and in case problem arises, the same would be repaired by the local Service Centre of OPs. But right from the beginning the Ice-cube maker compartment of the refrigerator gave problem and the same defect was brought to the notice of OP No.2, which could not be rectified. Moreover, the OP No.2 never cared to carry out periodical free services in spite of repeated reminders. The complainant further stated that the OP No.2 convinced him that the defect would be rectified prior to the next summer season 2009 and 2010. But the OPs failed to do so.  It is further averred that various systems of the refrigerator was not working properly and he made a complaint in July, 2010. Thereafter, the OP No.2 sent a mechanic. It was then found that electricity supply part was not functioning properly and the complainant was advised to get replacement of the same, for which he agreed. The OP No.2 charged Rs.6,756/ (Annexure C-2) for replacement of the defective part. Despite replacement the Ice-cube compartment is still not working. The complainant alleged that despite purchasing high priced refrigerator, the problem persists from the beginning. A legal Notice through registered post was sent to the OPs (Annexure C-3) and the same was replied by the OP on 11.8.2010 denying the receipt of any complaint, rather made reference to a report signed by Ms. Kiran Aggarwal dated 28.7.2010 regarding satisfactorily running of unit after replacement of PCB. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of the OPs.  Accordingly the OPs were proceeded ex-parte. 

3.             The complainant led evidence in support of his contention.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.             The complainant alleged through this complaint that after purchasing the refrigerator of reputed Hitachi Company who claimed their items as trouble free and also give assurance that in case any problem arises the dealer as well as the local service centre of the OPs are well equipped to repair the same but the refrigerator of the complainant who has spent Rs.35,000/-,  did not work up to the expectations of the complainant, rather within two years of its purchase a major part of the refrigerator became defective and was replaced on making payment of Rs.6756/- (Annexure C-2) dated 27.7.2010. Despite all this, the refrigerator is not in working position.  

4.    On the other hand, despite service through every possible means, none appeared on their behalf to controvert the contentions of the complainant, which proves that the OP has nothing to say against the contentions of the complainant.

6.      In view of the foregoing discussion and a perusal of the documentary evidence placed on file by the complainant, it has been observed that the complainant has only placed on file a receipt of retail invoice dated 12.5.2008 and a cash receipt of Rs.6756/- dated 27.7.2010. The complainant has not placed on file any cogent evidence such as warranty card/job card/expert opinion of the mechanic which can prove the averment of the complainant as correct that the said refrigerator has not worked from day one. Mere verbatim and oral assertions of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration as evidence. 

7.      We are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.

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

mp