Complainant Vandana Gupta has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to refund the sale amount or to replace the Refrigerator. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/-  as compensation on account of mental  and physical harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased one Refrigerator IFB Company S/N 51009724/55000083 on 23.10.2014 for Rs.58,900/- from opposite party no.1 for personal use. In the month of June 2019 the Refrigerator was giving problems and it was also not giving cooling so she called the technician of opposite party no.2 for checking the fault and he came to check the refrigerator, after checking the same, he told that the compressor was not working properly so she should lodge the complaint for replacement of the compressor of the refrigerator. She approached the opposite party no.1 in this regard and requested to replace the refrigerator or repair. She has further pleaded that she also lodged a complaint regarding the fault of refrigerator with opposite party no.2 on 8 August 2019 and reference ticket no.1003665066 was given by the customer care agent for solving the problem. She approached the opposite party no.1 many times for replacement of Refrigerator or repair as it was within warranty period or to refund the amount but opposite party no.1 neither replaced the refrigerator nor refund the sale amount till date and opposite party no.2 also never send the technician of the company again for replace or repair the same as it was within warranty. Opposite party no.1 sold the defective refrigerator to her intentionally. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is badly time barred; the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present Commission and is liable for dismissal; this Hon'ble Commission, while considering the prayers, sought for by the complainant in the present complaint, should keep in mind the well established principle, laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and the circumstances, in which he has accepted the contract; the complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging problems in the appliance without having produced any expert opinion/documentary proof in the Commission to prove that the subject appliances suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the appliance in question and the complainant has not approached to this Hon'ble District Commission with clean hands and had intentionally suppressed material facts in the complaint.  On merits, it was admitted that the complainant purchased the said product on 23.10.2014 and complainant has intentionally suppressed that the opposite party no.2 extended limited warranty over the product for a period of one year. The warranty terms were delivered to the complainant with the delivery of the appliance in the year 2014.  It was submitted that the request from the complainant was received for the first time on 08.08.2019 for which ticket no.1003555066 but it was found that the complainant was not residing at the given address. The technician enquired whereabouts of the complainant from Dr.Jugal Kishore but could not succeed in finding the complainant. Ultimately the Technician called the mobile number from where the abovesaid complaint was lodged on 08.08.2019 and found that the said number was contact number of the opposite party no.1. Even the opposite party no.1 failed to disclose address or contact particulars of the complainant. In these constrained circumstances the request could not be attended. The opposite party no.2 has not received any of the requests from the complainant and the request dated 8.8.2019 was received from the opposite party no.1. The refrigerator is properly working and does not require replacement after a period of more than six years. It was next submitted that the complainant has admittedly utilized the refrigerator for a period of 5 years without experiencing any problem. As per warranty terms, the opposite party no.2 was rendering after sales services and the opposite party no.1 was not under obligation to render after sales services. There was no question of approaching to the opposite party no.1 for lodging a complaint. The complainant cannot see towards the opposite party no.2 to maintain the appliance on free of costs after expiry of the warranty. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      On 11.12.2020 Sh.Surinder Kumar employee of opposite party no.1 had appeared in person and filed a copy of firm card. Thereafter, he did not come before this Commission and lastly on 19.3.2021 case called several times but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. Hence, opposite party no.1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.  

5.       Alongwith the complainant, the complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-1  and Ex.C-2.

6.      Alongwith the written statement opposite party no.2 filed affidavit of Sh.Anil Kumar Johri, Executive Taxation of IFB Industries Ltd. Ex.OP-2/1.

7.         Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

8.         Written arguments have not been filed by the parties.

9.          We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

10.     The present complaint is filed by the complainant regarding non replacement of defective refrigerator by opposite parties. The complainant placed retail invoice dated 23.10.2014 at Ex.C-1 for purchase of refrigerator of IFB make alongwith other items issued by opposite party no.1.

11.     It is alleged by the complainant that the said product gone defective in June/2019. As pleaded by complainant the complaint for repair of defective refrigerator was registered with opposite party no.2 and their technician checked it and found the defect in the compressor. Thereafter she approached opposite party no.1 for its repair/replacement of the product, but opposite party no.1 & 2 neither replaced or repaired the said product. It is also apprehended by complainant that opposite party no.1 may have sold her the defective product.

12.    As described in proceeding paras opposite party no.1 has been ordered to be proceeded as exparte.

13.    Opposite party no.2 in their written statement through their ld.counsel denied all the allegations. It is admitted by opposite party no.2 that the complainant has filed the complaint of a defective refrigerator. It is further pleaded that said complaint could not be attended as technician was unable to trace the complainant and the product at the given address.

14.     It is surprising fact on the part of complainant that one side it is claimed that a technician has checked the item at site but on the other hand opposite party no.2 has stated that their technician could not find the complainant at the given address.  The point of opposite party no.2 seems to be justified as he has to file an application for correct address of the complainant and permission to check the said product. It is also pleaded by opposite party no.2 that the said refrigerator has been shown as purchased in 2014 and complaint is registered after a gap of five years in 2019. There was not a single complaint filed by the complainant during this period of five years.

15.     Opposite party no.2 has got checked the said product at site and joint inspection report dated 11.11.2021 is placed on record. In the outcome of the joint inspection it is mentioned that "during inspection the refrigerator was checked and found that scrapped product was billed by M/s.Ajay Electronics (non-authorized dealer/distributor) in name of wife of Proprietor of M/s.Ajay Electronics. Perusal of complaint and affidavit etc. reveals that complainant has intentionally suppressed her husband's name from this Hon'ble District Commission."

   An affidavit of Inspecting Officer to this effect has also been filed by opposite party no.2.

16.      It is also particularly mentioned by opposite party no.2 that opposite party no.1 is not their authorized dealer/distributor. Opposite party no.2 also apprehended regarding billing of a scrapped products by opposite party no.1 in the name of  wife of proprietor of opposite party no.1  with malafide intention.

17.    From the above facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the case for replacement of scrapped refrigerator has been manipulated by opposite party no.1 in connivance with the complainant, who is the wife of proprietor of opposite party no.1.

        Moreover opposite party no.1 who is exparte in this case is not the authorized dealer/distributor of opposite party no.2.

Complainant has not submitted any rebuttal to the allegations/points in the joint inspection report submitted by opposite party no.2, which clearly shows her acceptance to the report.

18.    Hence we find no merit in the present complaint of the complainant as the complainant fails to prove the contents of the complaint.

19.    In view of the abovesaid discussion considering the facts and circumstances of the case the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

20.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

21.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                             

                                                         (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                                                                    (B.S.Matharu)

September 28, 2022                                                                                       Member

*MK*