CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

Case No.552/2013

Ms. ANJALI RAWAT

R/O – A2370, 2^ND FLOOR,

BACK GREEN FIELD, FARIDABAD,

HARYANA - 121010…..COMPLAINANT

Vs.

1. SHILPI ELECTRONICS

40/11, BASEMENT PILLI KOTHI,

M.B. ROAD, KHANPUR,

NEW DELHI-110062.

2. MANAGER

SAMSUNG HEAD OFFICE,

35, HUDA MAIN MARKET,

NEAR RELIANCE FRESH,

SUPER MARKET,

SECTOR-31, GURGAON,

HARYANA-122001 ALSO AT:.…..OPPOSITE PARTIES 

Date of Institution-19.10.2013

           Date of Order- 30.06.2022

  O R D E R

RASHMI BANSAL– Member

Complainant has filed the present Complaint alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and selling her defective Refrigerator, praying for replacement of the same or compensation of  Rs. 80,000/- for mental agony, loss of reputation, injury, damages and litigation cost. 

The case of the complainant is that she had purchased Samsung Refrigerator

 RT26RT28RT31, bearing serial number 134A/130G/134A/130G from OP-1, for a consideration of Rs. 22,800/- paid vide invoice number 3192 dated 19^th March 2012, Ex. Annexure C. Complainant states that at the time of purchase, the sound of refrigerator seemed uncommon but OP-1 assured her best quality stating Samsung is a renowned company specialized in the field of refrigerators. However, after purchase, complainant noticed that the said Refrigerator was having a severe manufacturing defect due to which it was not cooling. She had brought this to the knowledge of OP-1, vide her several notices dated April 2012, 12.07.2012 - complaint No. MR2008177, 23.07.2012 - complaint number MR41500647, April 2013, 08.05.2013 - complaint number 8443838778, Annexure D, but OP did not pay any heed. The complainant stated that on 23.07.2012, one of the parts of refrigerator was replaced but even then, cooling was not proper and the complainant had to bear with it. The complainant said that thereafter no due attention was given by OP despite repeated complaints and because of dereliction of duty, failure and neglect to rectify the same, the complainant had suffered heavy financial losses, mental torture and harassment. Complainant also stated that one mechanic had inspected and examined the Refrigerator after the direction of mediation cell and stated that the said Refrigerator is defective and needs to be replaced since it cannot be repaired. Complainant stated that OP-1 and OP-2 deceived her by selling defective Refrigerator and now by not replacing it,  committing  deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed amount with interest or exchange the said Refrigerator. In support of her case, complainant has also filed following documents:

1. Copy of the Dasti order dated 24.02.2014 issued by Consumer Commission, received by OP, Mark A
2. The copy of the ID of complainant, Mark B Despite service, OP did not appear and as such was proceeded Ex-parte on 26.08.2015.

The complainant was not appearing since long despite providing various opportunities, therefore, the complaint is being decided on the basis of the documents available on record, viz. complaint, Ex.-parte evidence and written arguments of complainant. A careful perusal of documents show that complainant has substantiated her claim on the basis of the invoice, dated 19.03.2012, bearing serial number 3192, for an amount of Rs.22,800 in her favor and the legal notice, undated, addressed to OP1, OP2 and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The various notices, as alleged, by complainant given to OPs on different dates i.e. April 2012, 12.07.2012- complaint no. MR2008177, 23.07.2012-complaint number MR41500647, April 2013, 8.05.2013 - complaint no. 8443878778, are not filed by complainant and they are simply mentioned in legal notices sent by complainant to OPs. There is no document on record to show that the said Refrigerator was having manufacturing defect or complainant has ever brought the same to the knowledge of OPs or demanded replacement or refund of money from OP. The complainant failed to place on record any service report/voucher /receipt of the part replaced on 23.07.2012, as alleged. The complainant also could not show that the said Refrigerator had been inspected and examined by any mechanic on the direction of mediation cell, and that she was informed that the said Refrigerator is defective one and needs to be replaced since it cannot be repaired. The invoice and the legal notice, as filed by complainant, are not sufficient evidence to prove that the said Refrigerator had any manufacturing defect.  Considering the material on record and the evidences filed by complainant, this commission is of the view that complainant failed to establish her case and therefore, the complaint is dismissed. 

The file be consigned to record room after providing copy of the order to parties free of cost. 

The consumer complainant could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.

The order be updated on website www.confonet.nic.in

The order contains 3 pages and bears my signature on each page.

(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR)              (RASHMI BANSAL)        (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)

       MEMBER                                          MEMBER                           PRESIDENT