DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.117 of 19-01-2016

Decided on 19-09-2016

Sukhdev Singh S/o Joginder Singh R/o Village Khachra, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

........Complainant

Versus

1.L.G Electronic India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office at Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Udyog Vihar, Noida, through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2.M/s Universal Enterprises, Ajit Road, Gali No.23, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Jagtar Singh, Advocate.

Opposite parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Sukhdev Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties L.G Electronic India Pvt. Ltd. and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 26.12.2014, he alongwith his friend Harchand Singh visited the shop of opposite party No.2 to purchase the refrigerator for domestic purpose. Opposite party No.2 induced him to purchase the refrigerator make LG, manufactured by opposite party No.1 by proclaiming the same as best as per quality and functioning. Complainant bonafidely believed the tall claims made by opposite party No.2 and purchased one refrigerator make LG for Rs.46,000/- vide bill No.1445 dated 26.12.2014 from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 provided guarantee and assured the complainant for best services in case of any defect during the warranty/guarantee period. It also assured for replacement of the refrigerator with new one in case of any major defect in it during the guarantee period.

3. It is alleged that in the month of January/February 2015, the complainant and his family observed that the refrigerator in question was not providing the proper cooling as the eatables and other products used to spoil due to improper cooling and freezer was not freezing the ice and refrigerator was not making the water cool and sometimes, it used to make huge and unnatural sound. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, who sent its mechanics to his house.He thoroughly checked the refrigerator, but could not detect the actual problem. Opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to lodge a complaint with opposite party No.1 on toll free number and assured him for needful at the earliest possible. Complainant lodged the complaint with opposite party No.1 on its complaint centre. The representatives/services providers of opposite party No.1 kept on visiting the house of the complainant time and again and used to provide formal service with an assurance that there is no defect in the refrigerator, but the refrigerator did not work properly for a couple of days together and continued giving the same problem. Ultimately, the officials of opposite party No.1 started proclaiming that the defect in the refrigerator is not detectable, as such they will get the same replaced with new one at the earliest possible, but opposite parties have failed to replace the refrigerator with new one and rather they kept on putting off the matter on one or other false pretext. The complainant again lodged complaints with opposite party No.1 on their toll free numbers on 2.11.2015 and 10.12.2015, but to no effect.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment, botheration etc. and replacement of the refrigerator with new one of same price or refund of its price in addition to Rs.5500/- as cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.

4. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties, but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

5. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

6. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill, (Ex.C1); photocopy of zimni order, (Ex.C2); photocopy of driving licence, (Ex.C3) and his own affidavit dated 11.7.2016, (Ex.C4) and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the file carefully.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the bill, (Ex.C1) proves that the complainant has purchased the refrigerator from opposite party No.1. The complainant has alleged that the refrigerator was not working properly and there were number of defects. He has reiterated his stand on oath by way of his affidavit, (Ex.C4). None had appeared on behalf of opposite parties to contest the claim of the complainant. Therefore, evidence of the complainant be accepted and reliefs prayed for be granted.

9. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

10. The complainant has alleged that he has purchased one refrigerator from opposite party No.1 on 26.12.2014,bill (Ex.C1) proves this fact. He has alleged that there is some manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, but there is no evidence to support these averments. The manufacturing defect can be proved by some expert evidence or other relevant evidence. There is no other evidence worth name except affidavit of the complainant. The manufacturing defect in the refrigerator cannot be held proved only by sworn affidavit of the complainant. Of-course, he has alleged that there is defect in the working of the refrigerator. Opposite parties have not come forward to rebut this evidence of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 being manufacturer of the product is duty bound to remove the defects in the refrigerator as per terms and conditions of its warranty card.

11. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the refrigerator in question as per terms and conditions of warranty.

12. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    19-09-2016

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member