Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/200/2015

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	200 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	20/4/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	10/2/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Gurmeet Singh son of late Sh. Amrik Singh resident of 1288, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Reliance Retail Ltd. (Formerly Reliance Fresh Ltd.) through its Manager/authorized signatory shop No.247, Second floor, Elante Mall, Industrial and Business Park, Phase I, Chandigarh.
2. Samsung India Electronic Private Limited Head Office, 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th floor, Tower C, Vipul Tele Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector 43, Gurgaon Haryana through its Managing Director/authorized officer.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     complainant in person.  

 

For OP No.1             :     Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

For OP NO.2 (Exparte)   :     Sh. Vikas Duggal, Adv.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased one Camera of Nikon for Rs.22950/- and a Samsung washing machine for an amount of Rs.52500/- vide Annexure C-1 from Opposite Party No.1.  As the said camera was found defective on the very next day accordingly the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1. However, due to non-availability of same make camera he was compelled to purchase other camera by paying extra payment.  It is alleged that Opposite Party No.1 sold the complainant said washing machine worth Rs.52,500/- claiming that the same is fully automatic but when it was operated it failed to perform perfectly i.e. failed to cover up drayage upto 100% as such the machine was having features of semi-automatic  which is available in the market for Rs.27,000/-. Thus, there was deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1. It is averred that the complainant raised the issue with the Opposite Parties but to no effect. Ultimately  he served a legal notice on the Opposite Parties to supply the automatic washing machine with 100% drayage but to no effect. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs, the instant complaint has been filed.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party No.2 seeking its version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 2.09.2015. However later on Sh. Vikas Duggal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2 joined the proceedings though he was not allowed to adduce evidence being exparte.  

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that Opposite Party No.1 is a retailer of various electronic goods including washing machine and camera and is not involved in the manufacturing process of the goods sold at its store.  It is  averred  that no cause of action arose against the answering Opposite Party as the defect if any in the machine can be removed by the manufacturer. It is further averred that when the complainant informed the answering Opposite Party about the said defect in the washing machine  it guided the complainant to approach the manufacturer as they only are having the technical knowledge of the product. Averred further that per prevalent practice it is the manufacturer/service centre of the manufacturer who are responsible for the its products and after completion of sale the service is provided by the manufacturer/its authorized service centre alone. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.1 made in the reply.
5.     The complainant and Opposite Party No.1 led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.     There is no dispute qua the purchase of fully automatic machine in question by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 on 23.12.2014 against payment of Rs.52,500/- which admittedly was delivered on 7.1.2015. It is the allegation of the complainant that since the date of its purchase, the machine is not working properly and has not matched the specifications assured and given in brochure by the OPs. The complainant also claimed that he paid the price of fully automatic machine with 100% drayage but the said machine failed to cover up drayage upto 100% as claimed by the OPs.
8.     In our view the present complaint is devoid of any cogent evidence to establish the allegation set out against the OPs. The complainant has failed to specify in his complaint that what is the exact problem in the functioning of the washing machine and what type problem he has faced while operating the same.  The job card placed on record is not legible enough to enable us to pin point the defect claimed to have been existing in the washing machine purchased by the complainant.  From the record it reveals that the complainant is not satisfied with the functioning of the machine in question as it failed to 100% drayage as alleged to have agreed by the OPs and claimed that he apprised the OPs about the same within warranty period. The complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to fortify his stand. Record reveals that the complainant has also issued legal notice to the OPs for the redressal of his grievance qua non-availability of the 100% drayage facility, failing which the complainant has filed the present complaint.  
9.     In such scenario by taking lenient view we opine that Opposite Party No.2 should examine the washing machine in question through its authorized service centre and find out the defect therein and make the same defect free if any existing therein.
10.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed with no order as to costs and the Opposite Party No.2 is directed as under:-

        

a]  To get the washing machine in question examined through its authorized service centre and make the same defect free if any existing therein, without charging anything from the complainant.

 

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.2 within 30 days of its receipt.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

10.2.2016  

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER