Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/180/2018

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Incharge, Supreme Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kant Rattan, Adv.

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	180 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	19.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	03.10.2018

Harjinder Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh, aged about 60 years, Resident of House No.409, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Incharge, Supreme Electro-Mech. Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Chandigarh – 160002.
2. Whirlpool Magic Care, SCO 365, Sector 8, Top Floor, Panchkula.

…. Respondents/Opposite parties No.1 and 2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-      Shri Kant Rattan, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh.Jitender Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                        Sh.Mukesh K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.

 

JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against an order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it dismissed consumer complaint bearing no.60 of 2017.

2.         The Forum noted down, averments made by the appellant in his complaint, in the following manner:-

“…the Complainant purchased a Whirlpool refrigerator about 4 years back and it had a warranty of 5 years. Unfortunately, it started giving trouble in a short span of 4 years. The Complainant accordingly sent the refrigerator to Opposite Party No.1 for setting right the fault,  for which it charged Rs.2300/- vide invoice dated 28.08.2015. On receipt, when the refrigerator did not work, the Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 28.08.2015 changed its Stabilizer, vide invoice dated 10.10.2015 changed its Compressor, vide invoice dated 28.07.2016 charged Rs.2000/- for repair and lastly, vide job card dated 02.11.2016 carried out repairs, but there was not much improvement and the refrigerator is lying shut. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party No.1, but to no success”

3.         By stating as above, it was alleged by the appellant that by not affecting proper repair of the refrigerator, the respondents have committed unfair trade practice and they are also deficient in providing service.
4.         Reply was filed by respondent no.2, wherein it was stated that the said machine/refrigerator was purchased from it. It was a graded machine (second hand/used). It was further stated that no warranty was given on the graded product. For repairs, the appellant never approached respondent no.2.
5.         Despite deemed service, none put in appearance, on behalf of respondent no.1, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte by the Forum.
6.         In the rejoinder filed, the appellant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those, contained in written version of respondent no.2.
7.         The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their case. 
8.         On analyzing the pleadings of the contesting parties; documents placed on record and also the arguments addressed, the Forum dismissed the consumer complaint, by observing as under:-

“On perusal of the documents, we find that the Complainant has failed to annex invoice/bill or serial number of the product showing as to from where and when he has purchased the Refrigerator in question. The Complainant has also failed to annex the warranty card of the said Refrigerator to show that the Opposite Parties are liable to repair the same within the warranty period, as claimed by him. In these set of circumstances, we are inclined to believe the version of the Opposite Party No.2 that it being the manufacturer of the home appliances gives no warranty on the purchase of graded (second hand)/ used Refrigerator, as purchased by the Complainant.  Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.”

9.         Hence this appeal.
10.         It was found as a matter of fact that the appellant has failed to prove that the said machine/refrigerator was within the warranty period. It was a graded machine (second hand) and no warranty was given on it.

                Be that as it may, it is contention of Counsel for the appellant that it was not his case that there was any violation of terms and conditions of warranty qua the product purchased. Rather, it was his grievance that despite taking the machine/refrigerator to the service centre, several times, it was not property repaired. It is on record that the refrigerator was taken to the service centre on 10.10.2015. On perusal of document Annexure C-7 it appears that compressor of the said machine/refrigerator was changed against price of Rs.7500/-. Prior thereto, the refrigerator was taken to the service centre on 28.08.2015, on which date, two parts were replaced against price of Rs.2300/-. The appellant also purchased a stabilizer on the said date, for an amount of Rs.1950/-. It is also on record that 28.07.2016, refrigerator was also taken to the service centre and on finding leakage of gas, it was got refilled against price. Above facts clearly indicate that basic trouble was with the compressor of refrigerator, which was purchased and replaced, against warranty of one year. There is nothing on record to show that during warranty period, the said compressor went defective. Furthermore, the expert report has not been placed on record, to show that as on the date of filing the complaint, refrigerator was not in a working condition. Except making bald statement, no evidence has been placed on record.  The Forum was right in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant. No case is made out, for any interference of this Commission, in the order impugned.

11.         For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed, with no order as to cost.
12.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

03.10.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Rg.

.