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

==========

Complaint Case No:  737 of 2010

Date  of  Institution :   12.11.2010

Date of   Decision   :   17.05.2011

Shashi Gupta widow of late Sh.Sadhu Ram Gupta, Resident of House No.595, Sector 7, Panchkula.

….…Complainant

                                       V E R S U S

1]       M/s Videocon Industries Ltd.,14 KM Stone,Aurangabad- Paithan Road, Chitegaon, District Aurangabad 431105

2]       Max Appliances Care, 25/3, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

          ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            PRESIDING MEMBER

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

Argued by:     Sh.Vaneesh Khanna, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Jasbir Singh, Authorized Agent for OP-2.

OP-1 already exparte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

­­­­­­­

1]             Briefly, the complainant is the owner of Videocon Refrigerator.  The refrigerator  was found to be giving no cooling in the lower compartment and accordingly the complainant contacted OP-1 through its Toll Free Number for rectification of the defect.  OP-1 deputed its local dealer i.e. OP-2 to inspect the Refrigerator.  The technician of OP-2, after inspection, suggested to the complainant that gas needed to be filled in the Refrigerator and thereafter the Refrigerator would work properly.  The complainant agreed and paid Rs.1550/- for gas fill and Rs.100/- as carriage charges to the technician for the job done.  After the defect was corrected, the complainant found that there was still no cooling in the lower compartment.  He again registered a complaint on 7.5.2010.  When the Engineer of the Company checked the Refrigerator, he found that OP-2 had over-filled the gas, hence some was removed and the complainant was assured that the Refrigerator would now work properly. 

                Thereafter, the sound from the Refrigerator stopped but still there was no cooling in the lower compartment of the Refrigerator, so the complainant once again lodged a complaint with OP-1 on 9.6.2010 but nobody came to attend the complaint.  Since, it was peak summer, the complainant purchased a new Refrigerator and then filed the instant complaint.  The complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1650/- along with compensation for the harassment caused. 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                OP-1 was duly served through registered letter, but inspite of that none appeared on its behalf.  Therefore, OP-1 was proceeded as exparte vide order dated 24.1.2011.

                In the reply filed by OP-2, it has been admitted that the gas was filled in the Refrigerator of the complainant on 30.4.2010 and the cooling in the Refrigerator was restored.  It is stated that the complainant never approached them on 7.5.2010 or on 18.6.2010, as alleged.  It is also denied that the Engineer found overfilled gas in the Refrigerator.  Submitting that the Refrigerator is an old one, and out of warranty period, and also may have other defects due to mishandling, OP-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and representative/agent of OP-2 and have perused the record on file.

5]             The complainant has placed on record the bill for the gas-filling, dated 4.5.2010.  There is no other evidence led by the complainant to prove the visit of the OPs on 7.5.2010 and 9.6.2010.

6]             From the record on file, it is evident that the Refrigerator is an old one and without warranty.  The complainant had filed the complaint against the OPs as they filled the gas in the Refrigerator and gave warranty thereof for 3 months only.  The complaint was filed on 11.11.2010.  This time was well beyond the warranty period for gas filled of 3 months and hence the OPs cannot be made liable for the claim.  Otherwise also it is an old machine and there could be other defects also due to which it is not functioning properly.

7]             In view of the above observations, we deem it proper to dismiss the complaint as the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service by the OPs.  We accordingly dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs. 

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced

17.05.2011                                                                                                                           (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

PRESIDING MEMBER

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER