DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 171 of 26.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 3.10.2007 <br /> <br /> Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, R/o House No. 5950, Mohalla Jhutika, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Rama Enter Prises, 4919, Post Office Bazar, Bathinda through its Proprietor.<br /> 2.Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. Through its Managing Director.<br /> 3.Samsung Service Centre, Gali No. 6, Near Public Dharamshala, Nai Basti, Bathinda.<br /> 4.Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, 2nd Floor, 731, Amrik Singh Road, Opposite Silver Star, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Rajinder Bhukal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Pardeep K Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1 <br /> Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite parties No.2&3<br /> Opposite party No.4 exparte <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss, besides the price of the Refrigerator alongwith interest thereon; Rs.20,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- as damages.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 is dealing in the business of sale of electronics goods i.e. Refrigerators, Televisions etc. at Bathinda. On 28.6.2006, he had purchased one Samsung Refrigerator having Sr. No. 62424ZAL500128 from opposite party No. 1 vide invoice No. 547 for Rs.21,000/-. Amount was financed by opposite party No.4. One year warranty was given by opposite party No.2 which is the manufacturer. Blower motor of the Refrigerator was burnt twice. It was replaced by opposite party No.3 i.e. the authorised service centre of the manufacturer. Again it was burnt. Complaint No. 1904 was made by him to opposite parties No. 1 & 3. Motor was again changed. It was again burnt. Complaint No. 1058 dated 14.6.2007 was made to opposite parties No. 1 & 3. Authorised Engineer of the company had visited his residence and had checked the Refrigerator. He did not set it right. He was informed that motors were burnt due to some technical defect in manufacturing of the Refrigerator by opposite party No.2. He alleges that he has suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- due to spoiling of the eatable articles. He is undergoing financial loss as he is paying instalments to opposite party No.4 alongwith interest. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are required to provide services to their customers. There is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. He has undergone mental agony, pain and harassment for which he is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite party No.1 filed reply of the complaint admitting that it is dealing in sale of electronics goods including Refrigerators. Complainant had purchased one Refrigerator vide invoice No. 547 through opposite party No. 4 under finance for Rs. 21,000/-. It has no responsibility for any defect as it is only doing the business of selling the electronic goods. If any defect occurs, it is the duty of the manufacture to cure it. Remaining averments in the complaint stand denied.<br /> 4. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 filed separate reply of the complaint stating that without admitting any deficiency in service or any defect manufacturing or otherwise in the Refrigerator, they are ready and willing to inspect and carry out all such necessary repairs, in case they are required, subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. If any complaint was received or made by the complainant, same was immediately attended to the satisfaction of the complainant or his representative present at the spot. Refrigerator consists of electronic parts. In case of any high voltage and fluctuation, they are susceptible to damage. In this case, repair was carried out on the fan motor which was changed as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Complaint was only with regard to sound problem and not regarding any problem in cooling. There is no manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator. They never refused to provide services as per terms and conditions of warranty. Although the Refrigerator, apart from the sealed system, is out of warranty period, they are still ready and willing to carry out a check of the Refrigerator in order to amicably settle the matter. Bill has been issued by opposite party No.1. They deny that Refrigerator was financed by opposite party No.4. Motor is an electronic component and any extreme change in fluctuation etc. may result in developing a problem. In this case, motor was burnt. It was replaced. Complaint was received on 14.6.2007. Engineer was deputed to inspect the Refrigerator. After inspection, no defect was found in the machine. They deny manufacturing defect in the product. Remaining averments in the complaint are not admitted by them.<br /> 5. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No. 4. Gurpreet Singh, Operation Officer of opposite party No. 4 had appeared as its authorised agent on 12.7.2007. On 19.7.2007, no-one came present on behalf of opposite party No. 4. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 6. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurmeet Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.3), affidavits (Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5) of S/Sh. Amandeep Singh and Inderjit Singh respectively, photocopy of invoice No. 547 (Ex.C.1) and photocopy of warranty card (Ex.C.2).<br /> 7. On behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Iqbal Singh, Manager and Surinder Kumar, Engineer respectively and photocopy of Customer Service Record (Ex.R.2). Opposite party No.1 did not lead any evidence.<br /> 8. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 submitted affidavit of Sh. Surinder Kumar, Engineer dated 10.9.2007. Questionnaire was submitted by the complainant for reply by Sh. Surinder Kumar by way of an affidavit. He has submitted reply of it in this manner.<br /> 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record. <br /> 10. Sale of the Refrigerator on 28.6.2006 by opposite party No.1 to the complainant was not disputed before us. Even otherwise, copy of invoice No. 547 which is Ex.C.1 proves the sale of the Refrigerator. Allegation of the complainant is that there is manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator. His this allegation finds mention in paras No.4 to 6 of the complaint. Question is as to whether complainant has established his version about the manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator purchased on 28.6.2006. No-doubt, warranty on the Refrigerator for one year was given and copy of the warranty card is Ex.C.2. Onus to prove the manufacturing defect in the product is on the complainant. In para No. 4 of the complaint, complainant alleges that blower motor of the Refrigerator was burnt twice and each time, it was replaced by authorised service centre of the company i.e. opposite party No.3. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 in the reply of the complaint have denied it. Even in the affidavit Ex.R.1, this allegation has been denied. Complainant did not make it clear in his affidavit Ex.C.3 as well as in the complaint as to when the blower motor of the Refrigerator was burnt and when it was taken to opposite party No.3. No date, month and year of burning the blower motor of the Refrigerator has been recorded. Similarly, no date, month and year of replacing it twice have been disclosed by him in the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex.C.3. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 admit that Customer Service Record Card No. 1904 dated 29.3.2007 was issued. According to the questionnaire and the reply of it by Sh. Surinder Kumar, Engineer, Refrigerator was inspected only on 29.3.2007 as it had gone out of order only once. Hence, evidence proves that for the first time Refrigerator was inspected by the Engineer of the company on 29.3.2007. Complainant has not established by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence that prior to it, it had gone out of order. If Refrigerator was purchased on 28.6.2006 and it has not been proved that it had gone out of order before 29.3.2007, how can it be said that there is manufacturing defect in the product. Manufacturing defect is a defect which exists in the product in its manufacture. A product which has manufacturing defect generally becomes irrepairable. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it can be presumed that complainant continued using the Refrigerator from 28.6.2006 till 29.3.2007, when it was brought to opposite party No.3 and was inspected by Sh. Surinder Kumar, Engineer as is evident from his affidavit Ex.R.3. On 29.3.2007 defect reported was sound problem. Repair record reveals that fan/motor was changed. Complainant had received the Refrigerator after repair to his satisfaction. How does it lie from his mouth that there is manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that complainant could not get the Refrigerator checked regarding manufacturing defect from any expert. No-doubt, it is so, but after filing the complaint, complainant could make request to this Forum for getting the Refrigerator inspected from some expert to prove his allegations about the alleged defect in the Refrigerator. He did not do so. Virtually there is no expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator. To the contrary, there is affidavit Ex.R.3 of Sh. Surinder Kumar, Engineer of Samsung India Electronics Home Care Service Centre, Bathinda. He has categorically stated in it that there is no manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator. Sound problem was on account of sudden voltage change. After inspection, he found no defect in the machine whatsoever and it was functioning properly. Sh. Surinder Kumar, Engineer has not recorded his qualification in Ex.R.3. This itself is no ground to discard his version as he has stated on solemn affirmation that he is the Engineer of the company. Complainant has failed to rebut his affidavit. Complainant by way of proving affidavits Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5 of S/Sh. Amandeep Singh and Inderjit Singh neighbours has tried to establish that there was no fluctuation in voltage. No weight can be attached to their affidavits as they are not Electrical Engineers. Fluctuation in the voltage during specific period could be explained by concerned officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board in a particular area. The evidence to this effect is lacking. Complainant has not named the Engineer, who as per his version, told him that the motors were burnt due to some technical defect in manufacturing of the Refrigerator. Moreover, his affidavit on this aspect of the matter stand amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.3. Hence, conclusion is that complainant has failed to establish manufacturing defect in the product.<br /> 11. From the reply submitted by opposite parties No. 2 & 3, it appears that they have come to this Forum with clean hands. Without prejudice to their right and without admitting any deficiency in service or any defect, manufacturing or otherwise in the Refrigerator, they have stated that they are ready and willing to inspect and carry out all such necessary repairs in case they are required, subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty. As discussed above, complainant has not examined any expert with the permission of the Forum to prove manufacturing or other defects. Once the Refrigerator was taken to the service centre i.e. to opposite party No. 3 on 29.3.2007 and it was repaired as is clear from Ex.R.3. Complaint No. 1058 dated 14.6.2007 alleged by the complainant is not on the record. If it was existing, complainant could get it produced from opposite parties No. 2 & 3. Hence, his version regarding complaint No. 1058 has not gone beyond the stage of allegation. Service centre of the company rendered service to the complainant as and when required and complainant received the product to his satisfaction.<br /> 12. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 3.10.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br />