DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                  Complaint no. 615                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   14.10.2016                                                                                   

                                                                  Decided on:    10.04.2017

Mohammad Shakeel son of Jalil Din, resident of House No.12, Near Railway Phatak, Raikot Road, Malerkotla Tehsil Malerkotla and District Sangrur.         

                                                        …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     M/s Zimindara Machinery Store, Talab Bazar, Malerkotla through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory.

2.  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited 20th to 24th  Floor, Two Harizon Centre Golf Course Road Sector 43, DLF Phase-5, Gurgaon-122209, Haryana.

                                                ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri R.S.Bhangu  Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  Rohit Jain  Advocate                         

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate                       

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Mohammad Shakeel, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he had purchased one  refrigerator  Samsung 212  from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.17000/- vide invoice no. 9054 dated 04.11.2015 under 120 months warranty.   After purchase of it,  the refrigerator was not working properly due to manufacturing defect for which the complainant approached OP no.1 and lodged complaint on 21.08.2016, 22.08.2016 and 24.08.2016  and Gurjant Singh Service Engineer of OP checked the refrigerator but defect was not removed. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to replace/change  the refrigerator,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- alognwith interest @18% per annum as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as counsel fee and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, it is denied that the OP ever assured the complainant that in case of any defect the goods will be replaced with new one. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, it is denied that OP no.1 ever assured the complainant that in case of any defect in the goods then same will be replaced.  It is denied that the refrigerator has warranty of 120 months. The warranty is only of one year for the entire refrigerator and 120 months warranty is only for the compressor as is clear from the warranty card placed on record by the complainant.  It is correct that  first complaint was lodged by the complainant on 21.08.2016. It is denied that any complaint was lodged on 22.08.2016 and 24.08.2016. Service Engineer checked the refrigerator on 24.08.2016  and rectified the problem to the satisfaction of complainant. Refrigerator was duly rectified by replacing ' Relay Combo' and refrigerator of the complainant was working properly, cooling, ice formation and all other parameters were found to be normal.  In the absence of any independent expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.  

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/5 and closed evidence.

5.             The complainant has stated in his complaint that he had made complaint number 4220017601 on 21.08.2016, 22.08.2016 and 24.08.2016 but he has produced on record copy of SMS received from the OP no.2 Ex.C-11 regarding complaint number 4220017601 registered with OP no.2 on 21.08.2016 at 02:54:27 pm but he has not produced on record any documentary evidence with regard to the complaint made on 22.08.2016 and 24.08.2016.  It is admitted case of complainant that Gurjant Singh Service Engineer of OP no.2 came and checked the defective refrigerator but defect could not be removed. On other hand, OP no.2 has stated that refrigerator was duly rectified by Gurjant Singh Service Engineer of OP by replacing ' Relay Combo' and same was working properly by cooling and ice formation. In support of their version, the OP no.2 has produced on record certificate of Gurjant Singh Ex.OP2/2 and his affidavit Ex.OP2/3.

6.             Moreover, the complainant has stated in his complaint that there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question but he has not produced on record report of an expert which could show that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question. As such the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing any cogent and reliable evidence on record.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case and as such the present complaint is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 Announced

                April 10, 2017

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                  

           Member                      Member                      President

BBS/-