Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/329/2013

Rajni Goel W/o Manoj Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Gera Vision - Opp.Party(s)

Luxmi Rani

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 329 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 03.05.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 05.04.2016.

Rajni Goel wife of Sh. Manoj goel aged about 32 years resident of House No.94, Krishna Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.     

                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Gera Vision, Main Road, Vishnu Nagar, Workshop Road, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: A-27, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.  

  

                                                                                                                       …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Ms. Lakshmi Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

              OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 10.09.2013.

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for Op No.2.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by Rajni Goel under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is house wife and purchased a refrigerator set Make LG  258 litres for a sum of Rs. 19,700/- vide Bill No.1023 dated 6.7.2012 from OP No.1 who is dealer and manufactured by OP No.2 i.e. LG. Electronics India Private Ltd. At the time of purchasing the said refrigerator it was assured by OP No.1 that the abovesaid refrigerator is free from all types of defects and is having 5 years guarantee. After the purchasing of the said refrigerator set, the same started creating trouble, as the said refrigerator was frost free inspite that ice on the rear wall of the said refrigerator was found from the first day and moreover, the said refrigerator was not working properly. Even, thereafter the gas of the refrigerator was leaked out and regarding this a complaint was lodged with Op No.1 and thereafter their employee filled the gas and charged Rs. 600/- but they have not issued any receipt. At that time they assured that complainant will not face any problem in the said refrigerator again but after some time part duro chill of refrigerator also became defective regarding which a complaint was again lodged and their mechanic again checked the refrigerator and stated that this is a manufacturing defect but repaired the same and assured that in future the same will working properly. In the month of February 2013, the said refrigerator started creating more trouble again because many times there was no proper cooling and compressor of the fridge was also defective as this product is having manufacturing defect. So many times the complainant visited the care service of OP No.2 and many job sheets against complaint No. RNA-130410083908, RNA-130408075961 and RNA 130423022350 respectively has been issued by the care centre of Op No.2. Despite so many complaints, the defective fridge has not been replaced by the OPs. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.9.2013. OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action, complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and on merit, it has been stated that LG electronics is a renowned Company in electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic Products for the past several years. It has been further stated that 5 years guarantee was not ever given by the OP No.1 to the complainant at the time of purchase of the said refrigerator. It has been further stated that complainant never approached the OP No.1 regarding trouble occurred in the refrigerator. Moreover, the complainant lodged the complaints with the toll free number as mentioned in the complaint and in this regard the service engineer of OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and checked the refrigerator thoroughly and found it in perfect working condition. Further, the service engineer of the OP No.2, in respect of complaint dated 23.4.2013 visited the house of the complainant but the complainant intentionally refused to get her refrigerator checked and adamantly forced the engineer to replace the refrigerator in question with new one but the engineer of OP No.2 told the complainant that when the refrigerator is in working condition in that case there is no question of replacing the refrigerator with a new one. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 4.                    To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence small affidavit of Rajni Goel as Annexure CX and affidavit of Sh. Tilak Raj Aneja as Annexure CY and documents such as photo copy of bill dated 6.7.2012 as Annexure C-1, Report of Aneja Refrigeration Store as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar of M/s L.G. Electronics as Annexure RW2/A and job sheet Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.   

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 carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that after purchasing of the refrigerator in question, it started creating trouble as the said refrigerator was frost free inspite that catch ice on the rear wall and furthermore the said refrigerator was not working properly and the employee of the OP also filled the gas in it and charged Rs. 600/- on this account. Despite repair of 2-3 times, the engineers of the OPs could not resolve the problem whereas on the other hand, version of the OPs is that complainant never approached the OP No.2 regarding any trouble occurred in the fridge. Moreover, the complainant lodged the complaints with the toll free number and in this regard the service engineer of Op No.2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the refrigerator which was found it in perfect working condition. The service engineer of the OP No.2 visited the house of complainant in respect of complaint made on 23.4.2013 but the complainant intentionally refused to get her refrigerator checked and adamantly forced the engineer to replace the refrigerator.

 8.                    We have perused the purchased bill No.1023 dated 6.7.2013 (Annexure C-1) carefully and minutely wherein it has been not so recorded that fridge in question was frost free refrigerator. Even, the complainant has not filed any pamphlet or warranty/guarantee card to prove her version that fridge in question was frost free and insptie of that it catch ice on the rear wall of the refrigerator. Complainant failed to move an application under section 13(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced here as under:

13(1)    Procedure on admission of the complaint.

(C ) Where the complaint alleged a defect in case which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, will it and  authenticate it in the manner prescribed and referred the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test which ever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods supplier from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report it is finding thereon to the District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

9.                     In the present case also, the complainant has alleged that the refrigerator in question was having manufacturing defect but no such report has been obtained from the authorized mechanic by the complainant to prove her version. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards report obtained on 22.4.2015 (Annexure C-2) from Aneja Refrigeration Store on letter pad of quotations but this report have no value in the eye of law as firstly this report has been obtained after a gap of near about three years from the date of its purchase and further the contents of this report are totally self contradictory. No notice has been given before inspecting the fridge in question to the OPs. Even this report have no signature of any independent witness in whose presence fridge in question was checked by the said person. Even, no stamp or name of mechanic and his qualification has been disclosed. This certificate bears only initial of some one. So, we are of the considered view that this report is nothing except a waste paper. During the pendency of this complaint, complainant has never moved any application for examination of the fridge in question by deputing any expert/mechanic to ascertain the actual position in respect of the fridge.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case that refrigerator in question was having any manufacturing defect and the complainant has spent money on the rectification of the refrigerator in question. 

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy 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 :05.04.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

                                                                      (S.C.SHARMA )  

                                                                      MEMBER