Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/298/2022

JAGBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIYA SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 298/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Jagbir Singh S/o Sh. Ganpat Ram R/o E-163 A, Yadav Nagar, Samaypur, Badli, Delhi-110042	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.         3.	Priya Services B-38-39, Sanjay Nagar, Mangolpur Kalan, Near Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi-110085   LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A Wing 3rd Floor, D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017   Darbar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Sham Lal Krishan Lal) 1/206/28, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt-110010	Opposite Party No.1                       Opposite Party No.2                           Opposite Party No.3

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

24.03.18 17.02.23 05.06.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant purchased a refrigerator model no. LG T292RPDN for a sum of Rs. 25,477/- vide invoice no. GST/D/G-2083 dated 18.01.18 from Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that he found leaking of water from inside of lower compartment of said refrigerator. The Complainant lodged complaint and technician visited house of Complainant several times and done some experiments and after one month of experiment the water stopped leaking from refrigerator and within 2 days the temperature control button, door buzzer and upper freezer stopped working. The Complainant lodged complaint to Opposite Party vide complaint ID RNP180212034548, RNP180120006915, RNP 180227088378 and RNP 180309038938. The Complainant called Opposite Party No.2 several times and requested for replace or repair the refrigerator in question but all in vain. The Complainant also sent various emails to Opposite Party but Complainant did not get any response from Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that the said refrigerator was under the warranty period but Opposite Parties failed to replace or repair the refrigerator in question. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to refund the amount of Rs. 25,477/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment. He further prayed for Rs. 1,100/- for litigation expenses.  
2. Opposite Party No.1 and 3 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 27.01.20.
3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 stated that the Complainant has admittedly purchase LG refrigerator on 18.01.18 from the Opposite Party No.1 and demo of the same was done on 20.01.18. It is submitted that the Complainant made complaint on 12.02.18, subsequently inspection conducted by the service engineer of Opposite Party, however after inspection the product in question was found perfect in working condition as well as running perfectly fine having no defect whatsoever. It is further submitted that on 27.02.18 the Complainant made another complaint regarding leakage of water from inside of the product in question, consequently the competent service engineer of the Opposite Party visited to the premises of the Complainant and leg of the same was adjusted  and the same is working perfectly. It is submitted that the Complainant further made complaint regarding cooling issue, however, at visit of service engineer, did not ready to make enquire/inspection of the product in question and adamant to replacement of the product in question, despite no inherent defect in the same. It is submitted that in terms of limited warrantee only defect is to be removed by rectification or replacement of the part, however the Complainant is seeing replacement without any defect of the product in question that cannot be fulfilled by the Opposite Party in terms of limited warranty. It is respectfully submitted that the present complaint is bluntly misuse of the process of the law and the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
4. It is further stated that the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has held in various matters that where the consumer has been provided with adequate services, the Complainant is not liable to any relief. The Opposite Party would like to bring to the kind attention of this Hon’ble Forum, the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vir Pratap 1997 II CPJ 81 (NC) wherein it was held that where the complaint of the Complainant were duly and promptly attended to by the Opposite Party and no reliable evidence was produced by the Complainant in support of his case that he suffered a loss due to inconvenience caused to him, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief. In the present case as well the Opposite Party has taken care of the complaints of the Complainant and has therefore never been deficient in the services provided to the Complainant.
5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.
6. We have heard the AR of Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No.2. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator model no. LG T292RPDN for a sum of Rs. 25,477/- vide invoice no. GST/D/G-2083 dated 18.01.18 from Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that he found leaking of water from inside of lower compartment of said refrigerator and after lodging complaint technician of Opposite Party visited house of Complainant and repair the refrigerator in question but after some days his refrigerator showed various other issues. The Complainant request to replace or repair the refrigerator in question but Opposite Party failed to do so.
7. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that admittedly the Complainant has purchased a refrigerator from Opposite Party No.1 on 18.01.18. It is submitted that when Complainant lodged complaint on 12.02.18 the service engineer of Opposite Party visited the house of Complainant and inspected the refrigerator in question and it was in perfect working condition. The Complainant made another complaint on 27.02.18 regarding water leakage from inside and service engineer of Opposite Party visited the house of Complainant and leg of refrigerator was adjusted and refrigerator in question was working properly. The Opposite Party stated that Complainant made another complaint and after visit of service engineer the Complainant was not ready to make enquire/inspection of the refrigerator in question and adamant to replacement of said refrigerator despite having no inherent defect. It is also the case of the Opposite Party that in terms of limited warranty only defect is to be removed by rectification or replacement of the part and Complainant is seeking replacement without any defect in the said refrigerator. 
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009 held that the onus of proof deficiency in service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant part of the judgment is as under:-  “19. The onus of proof of deficiency of service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is the Complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the Opposite Party cannot be held rsponsible for deficiency in service.”
9. In the present case, the Complainant failed to produce any evidence regarding deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party and as per the case of the Opposite Party in terms of limited warranty only defect is to be removed by rectification or replacement of the part and Complainant is seeking replacement without any defect in the said refrigerator.  
10. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party as whenever the Complainant lodged complaint, the service engineer of Opposite Party company visited the house of Complainant and resolved the issue in the said refrigerator and Complainant failed to proof any deficiency on behalf of Opposite Party.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
11. Order announced on 05.06.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President