DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 169 of 28-07-2009<br /> Decided on : 16-11-2009 <br /> <br /> Manjeet Singh S/o S. Kartar Singh, aged about 32 years, Street No. 3, H. No. 26662, Amarpura Basti, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Radio Corner, Post Office Bazar, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor/Manager<br /> 2.LG India Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 51, Udyog Vihar, Sujanpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida 201 306 (U.P.), through its Managing Director/Chairman.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Pardeep Kumar Sharma counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased one LG refrigerator Ch. No. 0765 from opposite party No. 1 vide Invoice No. 2672 dated 20-04-2009 for a sum of Rs. 13,500/- and opposite party No. 1 provided guarantee for the same for 5 years. The refrigerator started giving problem just after one month of its purchase as it was not giving proper cooling and automatically used to on and off. The complainant approached opposite party No. 1 and on his suggestion, he also contacted service centre of the opposite parties on 22.5.09 and lodged complaint. His complaint was attended to but the defects could not be removed. Thereafter he lodged complaints with service centre of the opposite parties on 29-05-09, 04-06-09, 16-06-09, 25-06-09, 20-07-09 and 21-07-09, but they could not rectify the defects and ultimately the visiting official conveyed him that there is some manufacturing defect which is not repairable. Thereafter he made repeated visits to opposite party No. 1 to get his refrigerator replaced with a new one, but to no effect rather opposite party No. 1 conveyed that his duty is only to sell the products and the services is to be provided by opposite party No 2. He alleges that despite spending huge amount of Rs. 13,500/- he has been deprived of his legal right to enjoy the facility of refrigerator. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant has been suffering from mental tension, agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace his refrigerator or in the alternative to refund its price alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of purchase till realisation and to pay him compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5500/-.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed reply taking legal objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts; complaint is liable to be dismissed as no expert evidence has been placed on file; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action; complaint is not maintainable and it is false and frivolous. <br /> On merits, it has been submitted that as per Owner's Manual, the aforesaid refrigerator comprises a one year warranty on all parts (except light bulb, consumable, loose plastic parts, glass) in the first year and thereafter four year additional warranty on the compressor from the date of purchase of the product. It has been pleaded that complainant lodged complaint of no cooling in the refrigerator first time on 22-05-09 and Sh. Kamlesh Kumar, Service Engineer/Mechanic of authorised service station of the opposite parties visited his house on 26-05-09 and adjusted the air controller and thereafter refrigerator started giving proper cooling and said mechanic found no defect in the refrigerator. However, the complainant refused to put his signatures on the job sheet. The complainant again lodged complaint of no cooling on 29-05-09 and Sh. Karnail Singh, Service Engineer/Mechanic of the authorised service station visited his house on 2.6.09 and found that refrigerator was working property. He advised the complainant to place the refrigerator at proper location where ventilation is proper. The complainant again lodged complaints with the opposite parties on 4.6.09, 16-06-09, 25-06-09, 20-07-09 and 21-07-09 and every time concerned service engineers/mechanic of authorised service station reported that the refrigerator is working property and there is no defect in his refrigerator.<br /> It is stated that refrigerator never stands on or off rather only its compressor becomes off when refrigerator is in de-frost condition to avoid excessive cooling. It has been specifically denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator or any of the service engineer of the opposite parties or authorised service station has ever conveyed the complainant that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and photocopy of bill dated 20-04-09 Ex. C-2.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties produced in evidence three affidavits of S/Sh Subash Kumar, Virender Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar, Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 respectively, photocopies of job sheets Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-10 and photocopy of bill dated 20-04-09 Ex. R-11.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 6. The record reveals that the complainant has filed his affidavit Ex. C-1 wherein he has reproduced the facts he has narrated in his complaint. Except filing his own affidavit Ex. C-1, the complainant has neither examined any witness nor any expert like mechanic or engineer who could have deposed that in fact the refrigerator is not giving proper cooling as per the required norms whereas the opposite parties have filed affidavit of Sh. Subhash Kumar Bansal Ex. R-1, Virender Kumar Ex. R-2, who is Incharge of Service Centre for LG refrigerators and one Sh. Kamlesh Kumar who is stated to be mechanic/service engineer working with Sh. Variender Kumar. Sh. Kamlesh Kumar has deposed that he visited the residence of the complainant and inspected the alleged defective refrigerator and prepared his reports Ex. R-4, Ex. R-5 , Ex. R-9 and Ex. R-10. In all these documents, he has specifically mentioned that the refrigerator is free from any defect and he advised the complainant to place the refrigerator at a place where it can get proper ventilation and the cooling control system was adjusted.<br /> The opposite parties have placed on record job sheets Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-10 which is attended to by the different mechanic/engineer of the opposite parties namely Kamlesh Kumar, Vicky and Ramandeep and they all reported with regard to the functioning of the refrigerator without any defect. The complainant has admittedly not examined any expert in support of his allegations that the refrigerator is not giving proper cooling and that it has a manufacturing defect. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the allegation levelled by the complainant are to be held as not proved. Our conclusion, as referred to here-in-above, find support from the view taken by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled Hardeep Singh Vs. Arvindera Electronics Private Limited & another 2004(2) CLT 405 wherein it has been held that the complainant had not given any details of the defects in TV nor any expert opinion that there was any manufacturing defect in the TV has been placed on record. It is, therefore, held that refund of price of the TV cannot be ordered. <br /> 7. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence brought on record by the parties, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-11-2009 <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br />