Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/702

USHA DHADDHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGAM ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

     CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 08.10.2015

Complaint Case. No.702/15                                          Date of order:    26.09.2018

IN  MATTER OF

Mrs. Usha Dhaddha, Flat no. 332, Block -KG-1, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-18                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Complainant

VERSUS

The Managing Director, Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., GL-11, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-58

                                                                                                                   Opposite party

                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                    ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        The present complaint is filed u/s 12 of the CPA by the above named complainant against Ops for deficiency in service. Briefly the facts stated by the complainant for disposal of the complaint are that she purchased Samsung FF RT-28HCRRI refrigerator from Op-1 for sale consideration of Rs. 16,448/- on 27.08.2011. The complainant was out of station and was unable to use refrigerator for a year. However after a year she used the refrigerator it was not cooling and the complaint was lodged with the op.  The OP told the complainant that the fault in the refrigerator is due to electricity fluctuation. Thereafter the complainant purchased Ups but  the problem still persisted. The complainant found out that the defect is since inception and the gas was leaking from the compressor of the refrigerator. The complainant lodged several complaints on 24.04.2014, 30.04.2014 05.05.2014 and 21.05.2014 but the same was not repaired. The Op took the refrigerator for repairs at its workshop on 05.05.2014 and returned the repaired refrigerator on 21.05.2014 after charging Rs. 1840/- though the product was within warranty period. Thereafter the complainant requested op for replacement of the disputed product on 09.05.2015 through email and also vide letter dated 06.06.2015. But op failed to reply. Therefore, the Ops are negligent and adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on part of the ops. Hence the present compliant for directions for replacement of the refrigerator or refund of Rs. 17240/- (Cost of Refrigerator 16,400+ repair charges 1840), Rs. 10,000/- for loss of use of refrigerator and sum of Rs. 8,000/-  on account of  mental and physical harassment.          

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs but none put in appearance on behalf of OP-1. Therefore, OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.03.2016. The OPs-2 and 3 filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that there is no cause of action against Op-2 and 3. They alleged that the product in dispute is more than 4 years old and is out of warranty and there is no manufacturing defect in the said product hence there is no deficiency in service on part of Ops 2 and 3. They further asserted that the complaint is filed with ulterior motive on false and frivolous grounds and prayed for the dismissal of the compliant. It was further asserted that the complainant used the said product for more than three years with full satisfaction and communicated with Op-3 for first time in 2014 after the expiry of warranty period. Therefore, there is no manufacture  defect in the refrigerator. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the compliant.   

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP denying the allegations and reiterating her facts of complaint. She  further asserted  that the compressor of refrigerator was defective from the very beginning  and has manufacturing defect. The Ops engineer on 21.04.2015 informed that the product in dispute is defective and net was put behind the fridge as they could not find the reason for leakage of gas and again prayed for the directions as prayed in complaint.

The parties were asked to file  affidavit of evidence. The complainant filed affidavit of evidence  testifying the facts of the complaint. She relied on copy of invoice, letter dated 06.06.2014 and copy of manual and warranty card, email dated 09.05.2014 and report of service center dated 26.04.2014. The ops -2 and 3 also tendered in affidavit of evidence of Anindya Bose A/R of Op-2 reiterating the facts stated in the reply and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Written arguments are also filed by the parties.

We have heard the complaint in person and counsel for OPs and gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The main controversy is to as weather the complainant is entitled for the relief sought.  The service report dated 26.04.2014 shows   that the compliant was lodged after more than two and half years. There is no cogent material on record to substantiate the version of the complainant that the refrigerator was defective from the date of purchase. She has annexed the warranty card which is also not filled up and same is blank and unsigned. Except the affidavit of complaint which is rebutted by OPs, there is nothing on record to prove that compressor of the refrigerator was defective and was covered under warranty clause. Moreover, there is no cogent material on record to show that there is manufacturing defect in the product in dispute.  Hence she is unable to prove any deficiency in service on part of ops.          

In light of above discussion and observations there is no merit in the compliant.  Resultantly the same is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

Order pronounced on :- 26.09.2018

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              (K.S. MOHI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                              PRESIDENT