D.C.Garg (Dhaula) son of Sh. Walaiti Ram, Resident of House No.295, Sector 49-A, Advocates Enclave,Chandigarh.

             V e r s u s

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7^ththIFCITower,61 Nehru Place,New Delhi-110019, through its Managing Director.

2.Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1096, Sector 22-B, Near Hotel Piccadilly,Chandigarh, through its Propreitor.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:Sh.D.C.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased an Air Conditioner of Samsung Company (Opposite Party No.1), through Opposite Party No.2,  

3.                      

4.               The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the sale of AC, in question, to the complainant. It was also admitted that the complainant earlier filed a Consumer Complaint, with regard to the AC, in question, as well as stabilizer supplied alongwith it. It was stated that though the Opposite Parties had offered an extended period of warranty till 31.12.2012, in respect of the AC Unit, in question, yet neither any fault had been reported, nor any complaint was made by the complainant to carry out repair. It was further stated that even the complainant did not mention, as to on which date, he made a complaint, to the Opposite Parties, to the effect that the AC, in question, was not giving proper cooling or it was not properly functioning. It was further stated that there was no defect, in the AC, much less the inherent manufacturing, and, as such, the complaint filed by the complainant was a frivolous one. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.           6.            

7.           

8.            

9.           

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, in the complaint, it was stated by the complainant, that he made a number of complaints, to the Opposite Parties, for the rectification of defects, in the AC, in question, yet, no documentary evidence, was produced by him, in that regard. In case, the complainant had made any complaint, to the Opposite Parties, in writing, then he must have kept a copy thereof. In the absence of any documentary evidence, having been produced by the complainant, that complaints were made to the Opposite Parties, for rectification of defects, in the AC, in question, his bald statement, in that regard, could not be believed. Therefore, it could not be said that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, on that score. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.

11.            Preventive Maintenance/Commissioning Report (Expert Report), dated 13.06.2013, wherein it was mentioned that there was no proper cooling and the AC was not working properly. One Technician, namely Dalbir Singh, statedly checked the AC unit, in question. This report is not supported by the affidavit of Dalbir Singh, who allegedly prepared the same. Under these circumstances, no reliance could be placed, on this report, for coming to the conclusion, that the AC, in question, was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. In case, the AC, in question, was not giving proper cooling, it was required of the complainant, to produce some tangible evidence, of an expert, in the line, but he failed to do so. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties submitted an affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Service Engineer, Samsung India Electronics India P. Limited, by way of evidence. In his affidavit, it was stated by Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, that he checked the AC, in question, in the presence of the complainant, and submitted the report, copy whereof, is at page 28 of the District Forum file. It was further stated by him, in his affidavit, that grill temperature of the AC, in question, was 9.7 centigrade, which was in the normal range of 8-10 centigrade. Input Voltage was 210 V and the stabilizer had an output of 220 V, which was correct. It was further stated by him, in his affidavit, that the current drawn, in the said AC was 9A, which was also correct, and was the same, as was required for an efficient machine (A.C.).   in his affidavit, that the AC, in question, was installed at the corner of room, and that too, which was not a closed one. It was further stated by him,  in his affidavit, that in the said room, two refrigerators were installed, and continuously working. Not only this, a microwave oven, had also been installed in the said room. Despite that, the room temperature came down from 33 centigrade to 28 centigrade, in 40 minutes. Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, also submitted the photographs, alongwith the report. The report of Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, aforesaid, duly supported by him, by way of evidence, is specific and unambiguous. From the report of Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, supported by his affidavit, it was proved that the AC, in question, was giving proper cooling, and was not suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the Opposite Parties, were not deficient, in rendering service, on this score. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

October 10, 2013_

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.)

Argued by:Sh.D.C.

Dated the 10^th

ORDER

2.            the applicant/appellant/complainant, from producing these documents collectively, on record, in the District Forum. In case, at this stage, the application for placing, on record,Annexure A1 (Colly.) by way of additional evidence, is allowed, that will amount to reopening of the case and will further delay the disposal of appeal, thereby defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 13 (3A), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulating the specific time, for the disposal of Consumer Disputes. Thus, there is no justification, whatsoever, to allow the application, for placing, on record, Annexure A1 (Colly.), by way of additional evidence, at this stage.

3.           

4.