BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mrs.Krishna Devi, R/o H.No.799, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]       Mehrasons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1096, Sector 22-B, Near Hotel Piccadilly, U.T., Chandigarh through its Prop./Partner/Manager/Owner.

2]       Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its Prop./Partner/Owner.

                                                ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                     MEMBER

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Jagpal Singh, Adv. for Complainant.

Sh.Daljeet Singh, Office Incharge/Representative of OP No.1.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.2.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant purchased one Samsung 250 Lt. Refrigerator from OP No.1 for Rs.13,500/- on 23.4.2009 vide Ann.C-1.  However, at the time of its installation, complainant noted many dents on the body of refrigerator, so he refused to accept it whereupon the OP promised to replace the same within a week.  It is averred that the OPs inspite of said promise neither replaced the defective refrigerator nor gave any satisfactory reply despite a lapse of more than 4 months. Ultimately, a notice was sent to OP No.1 which they refused to accept.  Thus, this complaint was filed alleging the said act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing great mental, physical and financial loss to the complainant.       

2]                OP No.1 did not file any reply or evidence inspite of availing opportunities/dates for the same nor paid the costs.

3]                In the reply field by OP No.2, it is stated that the refrigerator so purchased by the complainant was under an exchange scheme.  It is denied that there were any dents in the refrigerator/machine at the time of installation.  It is submitted that even otherwise, any dents which may have arisen on account of transportation, after the purchase of the machine by the complainant, from the dealer, does not make the manufacturer negligent in any manner.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4]                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]                We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 and representative of OP No.1 and have also perused the record. 

6]                The refrigerator was purchased by the complainant on 23.04.2009.  Annexure C-1 is the copy of the bill in this respect.  When the refrigerator was installed at the house of the complainant he did not raise any objection if there was dent on its top. There is no writing to that effect produced by him.  However the letter Annexure C-2 was issued by a lawyer on his behalf on 28.07.2009 i.e. after more than three months of the installation of the refrigerator.  If there had been any dent or dents on the top of the refrigerator, the complainant would not have accepted the same or would have made writing to that effect on the bill Annexure C-1 or would have protested in writing immediately thereafter.  The contention of the OP therefore appears to be correct that these dents/dent appeared on the refrigerator subsequently.

7]                Annexure C-2 the letter sent by an Advocate on behalf of the complainant which shows that on 28.07.2009 there was only one “a dent”  on the top of the refrigerator, however, when the legal notice Annexure C-4 was sent on 22.08.2009, it is mentioned in para number 2 that there were “many dents” on its top.  During that period the refrigerator remained in the custody of the complainant. These “many dents” therefore appear to have been caused by the complainant himself. If the complainant could cause “many dents” on the refrigerator, it cannot be believed that he had not caused the first dent also.  It shows that these dents could have been the creation of the complainant when he became dishonest to claim the new refrigerator and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- an account of litigation expenses as claimed in concluding para of the complaint.

8]                It is now common these days that the complainants are turning dishonest and they are creating such type of evidence against the OPs at their own, so as to claim exorbitant compensation from the OPs.

9]                In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that there was any dent on the top of the refrigerator on the date on which it was delivered to the complainant.  There is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.