Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1114/2012

Ranjeet Kaur d/o Sh.Lakhvinder Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kakkar Electronics, - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                        

                                                                                Complaint No. 1114 of 2012                                                                                               

                                                                                Date of Institution: 12.10.2012

                                                                                RBR No. 11 of 08.09.2015

                                                                                Date of Decision: 07.03.2017.

Ranjeet Kaur aged about 22 years daughter of Sh. Lakhvinder Singh, resident of 1067, Dwarkapuri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Kakkar Electronics, Shop No. 51-52, Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar.
2. M/s Godrej Refrigerator Head Office Pirojsha Nagar Vikhroli, Mumbai 400097 through its M.D.                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                 …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. S.S.Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.  

              Sh. Nitin Arora, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                      Complainant  Ranjeet Kaur filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986. 

2.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that father of the complainant had gifted the fridge of Godrej Company after purchasing the same from the Kakkar Electronics (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) manufactured by Op No.2. When the complainant took the fridge in her-in-laws after some days some defects occurred in the fridge for which the complainant requested the Ops to check the fridge and engineer of the OPs had checked the fridge of the complainant and asked the complainant that there was some manufacturing defect and the same was to be taken at the shop of Op No.1. Thereafter, complainant after hiring the vehicle left the fridge at the shop of Op No.1 only within month from the date of purchase. The father of the complainant visited the shop of Op No.1 and asked him to replace the fridge or refund the cost of,  firstly the OP No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other but ultimately refused to do the needful. It has been further mentioned that after some time the Op No.1 left the shop and become underground due to which complainant could not trace out the OP No.1 inspite of best efforts but now the OP No.1 has come in Yamuna Nagar but did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The in-laws of the complainant also harassing the complainant by saying up words hence, it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to refund the cost of fridge or to give new fridge to the complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     In support of her case, complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as CW/A and affidavit of her father Sh. Lakhwinder Singh as Annexure CW/B and photo copy of consolidated item of purchase bill dated 05.12.2007 bearing No. 2623 issued by OP No.1 as Annexure C-1 and closed her evidence.

4                      Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.01.2016. However, upon notice Op No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has concealed the true facts. The complainant has alleged in her complaint that fridge has not been working properly and is having manufacturing defect but no expert report has been placed on file; the present complaint is based on false and fictitious allegations which cannot be adjudicated upon by way of summary procedure; present complaint is hopelessly time barred, warranty period has already been expired and on merit it has been denied for want of knowledge that father of the complainant purchased the fridge from Kakkar Electronics. Further, it has also been denied that there was any defect in the fridge and it was got checked by the engineer of the company and the said engineer told to the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the fridge. The fridge in question was neither checked by any engineer of the company nor was it sent to the service centre of Op No.2 Company. As per own version of the complainant, the fridge was sent to Op No.1 only who was dealer and was not authorized to check or repair the fridge and other items. At the time of sale, the customer was provided with helpline number/ customer care number of the company which is authorized centre to receive the complaint and no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the service centre or customer care. Rest contents of the complaint were also denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5                      OP No. 2 failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence is hereby closed by court order today.

6                      We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7                      The only version of the complainant is that fridge in question was not working properly since its purchase and within one month from its purchase father of the complainant left the fridge at the shop of Op No.1 but this plea of the complainant is not tenable as no such documents have been placed on file to prove that complainant has ever left the fridge at the shop of the Op No.1 and further the fridge in question was having any manufacturing defect in it. We have gone through the complaint of the complainant. Even the complainant has not disclosed in her complaint as to what type of defect was noticed by her. As per version of the complainant, her father purchased the fridge alongwith LG T.V., Khetan Fan and Pump Kit alongwith fridge in question for total amount of Rs. 21,500/- on 05.12.2007 vide bill No. 2623 from Op No.1 but the present complaint has been filed on 12.10.2012 i.e. after a period of near about 5 years from its purchase. So, the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, on merit also, as the complainant has not filed any expert/mechanic report to prove any manufacturing defect in the fridge in question which is mandatory as per section 13(1)( C) of the Consumer Protection Act wherein it has been mentioned that where the complainant alleged defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or the test of goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, still it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and referred the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, which ever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its finding thereof to the District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

8.                     Although, the OP No.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte even then the burden lies on the shoulder of the complainant to prove her case from all corners.

9.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 07.03.2017.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER