Haryana

Ambala

CC/347/2010

BALDEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHNA ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

BINDERJEET SINGH

21 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                     Complaint Case No.:  347 of 2010

          Date of Institution    :  27.07.2010

          Date of Decision  :    21.07.2015

Baldev Singh son of Sh. Parshana Ram, resident of Talheri Rangran, District Ambala.

                                                                                                                                                               ……….Complainant

                                                                                                         Versus

1.       Krishna Electronics near Railway Crossing Barara, District Ambala through its proprietor.

2.       Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. Electronics Division, C-6, Ashok Steel Compound 159, C.S.T Road, Kalina Santacruz (E), Mumbai, through its Managing Director.

Correct Address:  Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. (KAIL) SCO No.137, IInd Floor, Sector -13, Urban Estate, Karnal ( Haryana) through its Manager.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Binderjeet Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Amit Kumar Garg, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.                  

ORDER

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant  purchased a Sansui Colour TV from OP No.1 on 30.07.2009 in a sum of Rs.5300/- vide invoice no.6733; having one year warranty. After two months of its purchase, T.V. Stopped working and on complaint, Mechanic of Op No.1 repaired the same but the defect could not be removed as there was some manufacturing defect.  Thereafter, on 19.06.2010, the complainant handed over the defective TV to the OP No.1 which is still lying with the OP No.1 as per complainant.  Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Having no other alternative, present complaint has been filed by complainant seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Upon notice, Op No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint because he is only a seller of the TV in question and liability, if any, in the matter, lies only on the manufacturer-company. On merits, it has been submitted that the TV set was repaired by the Mechanic of the OP No.2  as & when any defect developed therein to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and  in case of any fault in the sold items, answering Op is not responsible for any payment or compensation as clearly mentioned  on the cash memo vide which the T.V. in question was sold that “Goods sold are subject to the terms of warranty”.  Hence a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

3.                OP No.2 did not appeared despite service through regd. Post and as such he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.10.2011.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered his Affidavit as Annexure RX and closed his evidence. 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel of parties and gone through the record very carefully.  The main grouse of the complainant is that the TV in question  purchased by  him on 30.07.2009 from OP No.1 became defective after two months of its purchase and the defect could not removed by Ops despite repair and on 19.06.2010, the complainant handed over the TV set to the OP No.1 but neither the TV was repaired by the OP  nor it was handed over to him.

          On the other hand, the counsel for the appearing Op No.1 argued that the TV was repaired by mechanic of OP No.2 to the entire satisfaction of the complainant whenever it created problem. However, the answering OP is not responsible for any manufacturing defect for the sold items. Besides it, the counsel for answering OP has argued that complainant has filed a frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing defect in the TV Set without producing any Mechanic report or expert opinion though as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, it was mandatory.  Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act reads as under:- “ where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined  without proper analysis or test of the goods,  the District Forum shall after obtaining a sample of goods, send it to appropriate laboratory with a direction that such laboratory make such analysis or test with a view to find out whether  such goods suffer from any defect, alleged in the complaint or from any other defect.”  The counsel for the Op No.1 also relied upon case law reported in CPJ 2006(II)page 143 (N.C)  titled as Dagadu Bhairu Bhosale Vs. Scooter India Ltd. etc.  wherein it has been reported that “in the absence of an expert report,  the Forum cannot determine the defect in the goods.”

6.                After hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the records, it is not in dispute that the TV in question  was sold by OP No.1 vide Annexure C-2 to the complainant but as per complainant said TV was having some inherent defect which was not rectified by the OP company whereas the complainant has not placed on record any document  or job sheet etc. for the alleged defect  wherefrom it is proved that the TV in question was having some manufacturing defect. Besides it, the complainant has not filed any affidavit of any expert or technical person in this respect to prove the defect, if any in the TV Set.  Moreso, the complainant has also failed to place on record any document which could show that the TV set was handed over to the OP No.1 at any time.

                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and thus the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

 

 

Announced:21.07.2015

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                              (A.K. SARDANA)

              PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

         (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                      MEMBER