Delhi

East Delhi

CC/289/2016

SHIKHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGAM ELEL - Opp.Party(s)

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no          289/ 2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  03/06/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 13/04/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          15/04/2018   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mrs. Shikha, adult 

W/o- Mr Sachin

R/o- C-67A, Gurdwara wali Gali no. 3, 

Sukh Vihar, Jitar Nagar, Delhi 110051……………………………………….…Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt Ltd.   

 C-52, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092

 

2- M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt Ltd.   

HO- 2,3 &4rth Floor, Tower C

Vipul Tech square, Golf Course Road,

Sec. 43, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002…………..…………………………………Opponents

 

                                      

Complainant’s Advocate -                  Mr Mukesh Sharma & Ashish Uppal

Opponent’s Advocate -                       Mr Prashant Arora c/o Kapoor & Co. Advo.

 

Quorum  -     Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                         Dr P N Tiwari                Member 

                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                                 

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case

  

Complainant purchased Samsang refrigerator on 18/04/2015 from OP2/seller having model no. FF RT-33JSRFESL for a sum of Rs 29,000/- vide invoice no. SPREET 0629 (Ex CW1/1) having one year standard year warranty.

It was stated that after about a year the fridge developed water leakage and cooling problem due to improper closing of the door of the fridge, so complainant lodged complaint with OP1 on dated 05/04/2016 and again on 10/04/20166 vide complaint no. 4211896820. The technician visited and rectified the problem and assured for replacement of fridge in few days, but fridge had again same problem so after lodging complaint on 10/05/2016 and problem of door closing gas leakage was corrected, but complainant’s father in law Mr B R Uppal wanted to get replaced the fridge to a new one (Ex CW1/2).  Before the complaint was attended, complainant also sent a legal notice on 14/04/2016 to OP1&2 (Ex CW1/3) for replacement by a new fridge of same model and compensation of Rs one lac. When no reply was received complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of fridge with compensation of Rs. One lac and litigation fee of Rs 11,000/-. 

OP1 / seller filed written statement and denied all the allegations put against them by complainant. It was admitted that complainant had purchased the said fridge as per Ex CW1/1 and worked well up to 05/04/2016 when complainant lodged a telephonic complaint and same was rectified on the same date. The fridge was working well almost up to one year. It was stated that complainant had purchased the fridge after full satisfaction and the same was installed by the service engineer sent by the OP1. There was no manufacturing defect reported by service engineer as per service report meaning thereby the fridge was not a defective product sold by OP1, hence was not responsible for replacement or compensation asked by the complainant against OP1.

OP2/Samsang Electronics, the manufacturer submitted their written statement and admitted that the said fridge was manufactured by them, but it did not have any problem in almost one year till first complaint was reported and that too being beyond the warranty tenure, was attended and problems were rectified. The main complaint was reported as water leakage and improper cooling which was found to be due to the gas kit and loose door which too was rectified, but complainant’s father in law who was insisting for replacement for a new fridge, this complaint was filed. There was neither manufacturing defect nor any any other problem or defect, so replacement was done.

OP2 also took reference of citation as “Shivprasad Paper Industries vs Senior Machenary Co. (I2006 CPJ 92 NC)” where it was laid down that equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired.” Hence there was deficiency in providing services to the complainant and also there was no evidence which could be seen as any inherent defect. So OP2 were not liable for any liability.  

Complainant submitted her rejoinder to the written statement replies submitted by both the OPs and denied the facts stated therein. It was stated that the said fridge was a defective and OP 2 did not replace for a new fridge.  She also submitted her evidences on affidavit and affirmed herself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in her  complaint and the said fridge had manufacturing defect, but OP did not replace the fridge. 

Complainant also submitted an affidavit of local fridge supplier on rent dated 01/07/2016 and stated that she took a fridge on rent for a sum of Rs 800/-pm as OPs were not providing any services. 

OP1 submitted their evidence on affidavit through their Authorised Representative Mr Manoj Kumar at OP1 and affirmed that their all the products had standard one year warranty extended through the manufacturer and the same was available to the said fridge also. As there was no manufacturing defect, so there was no question for replacement of fridge to new one. It had water leakage problem after about one year of its use without any evidence of defect was timely rectified by their service engineer even the complaint was beyond warranty tenure.  

 

OP2/manufacturer submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mr Anindya Bose, AR with OP2 who submitted that their all products were manufactured defect free and had one year standard warranty and as in fridge, compressor had five year warranty. Due to fluctuation of electricity or any manual handling, minor problems may occur, but said product being in warranty, services were provided accordingly. As in this fridge, there was no manufacturing defect was reported by their service engineer, so replacement was not required. OP2 also took reference of citations as – Tata Motors vs Deepak Goyal, RP 2309/2008NC, Vikram Bajaj vs Hind Motors India Ltd & others, 2009IICLT 670 NC, Kamal Kishore vs Electronics Corporation of India, RP 3029/2010 NC, the law laid down were same as replacement was only done if manufacturing defect was proved by expert report or seen. Hence under this condition where no defect was proved, OP2 was not liable and the said complaint may be dismissed.  

Parties filed their written arguments and were on record.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It was admitted by OP1 that the said fridge was purchased by the complainant, but denied to have any manufacturing defect. Also it has been seen that there was no evidence of warranty card showing that fridge had one year standard warranty and compressor had five year warranty. The service report submitted by the complainant could not prove that the said fridge had manufacturing defect or OP1 did not try to rectify the defect whatsoever was present. In absence of any concrete evidence from complainant, it is thus observed that the fridge had no manufacturing defect. Also another evidence of a local fridge supplier on rent had no evidence to prove that complainant took any fridge on rent as her business was suffering more so contents of this affidavit were beyond the pleadings hence cannot be considered.   

OP1 being the seller, had no liability in providing services and similarly OP2 had no deficiency in manufacturing their products. Hence no liability could be fastened on OPs. So, we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect in the said fridge. Thus, this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed without any cost to order.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                                          Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member

                                                         

                                                          Shri Sukhdev Singh - President