BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 229 of 2015                                                                         

                                                        Date of Institution         :    16.12.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :   24.10.2016

Gurbhajan Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh, resident of village Sant Nagar, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.

                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Punjab Radios, Authorized Dealer of Haier and Whirlpool Main Bazar Ellenabad, Distt. Sirsa through its proprietor.
2. Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Building No.1, Near Modi Mill foot overbridge, Okhla, Phase 3, Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi 110020 through its Managing Director (Manufacturer of Haier Washing Machine)

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………..PRESIDENT

                   SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……. MEMBER.     

Present:       Sh.P.K.Bagria,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties exparte.

ORDER

          Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased one Haier Washing machine from the opposite party no.1 on 17.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.11,500/- vide bill No.1464 dated 17.12.2013 and op no.1 had given warranty of two years for normal defect and three years for motor etc. However, after about two months of purchase of said machine, the complainant came to know that there are several manufacturing defect in the said washing machine and same was not running/ working properly. Then he reported the matter to op no.1 who assured him that Engineer of op no.2 will come to his shop and if the Engineer found any manufacturing defect, the washing machine will be replaced with new one. Thereafter, complainant visited the shop of op no.1 several times but always op no.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally the proprietor of op no.1 a week back refused to do anything in the matter. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, initially ops appeared through their representative but when the case was fixed for filing written statement, none appeared on their behalf and so, they were proceeded against exparte.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill dated 17.12.2013 Ex.C2.

4.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the complainant.

5.                There is absolutely nothing on record to prove or to presume any manufacturing defect in the washing machine purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1.  In this regard, only his own affidavit is not, at all, sufficient to prove manufacturing defect in the washing machine. To prove manufacturing defect, the complainant could have got the washing machine examined from some expert. But, he has not done so. The complainant purchased the washing machine on 17.12.2013 and filed the present complaint only on 16.12.2015 and during this period of two years, not even a single time, the washing machine was got examined/repaired from any mechanic or from any service centre. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated:24.10.2016.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                        Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.