Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/60/2017

Mr. Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.K. Rattan

14 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/60/2017
Date of Institution	:	20/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	14/05/2018

 

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

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Incharge, Supreme Electro Mech. Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.78, Industrial Area, Chandigarh – 160002.

2.     Incharge, Whirlpool Magic Care, 365, Sector 8, Panchkula.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

PRESENT:	:	Sh. S.K. Rattan, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
		None for Opposite Party No.2.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that 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. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         The Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement has averred that the Complainant has not mentioned from where and when he purchased the refrigerator in question. In fact, the Complainant had purchased a graded refrigerator (second hand/used) and as a manufacturer of the Whirlpool products, the answering Opposite Party never give warranty to its graded products. Moreover, the answering Opposite Party was neither approached nor did any repair to the refrigerator in question. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments advanced on behalf of Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for Complainant.
7.         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.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                        

14.05.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

      

                           Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”