DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 685/09
Ashok Kalra,
S/o Sh. K.L. Kalra,
R/o 11/48, Malviya Nagar,
Third Floor, New Delhi – 17 -Complainant
Vs
1. Smart Mart Stores Pvt. Ltd.,
Lajpat Nagar, Near Tiwari Sweets,
New Delhi.
2. Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd.
B-1A-14, Mohan Cooperative
Industrial Estate, Mathura Road
New Delhi – 110044 -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 07.09.2009 Date of Order: 13.07.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
The complainant purchased a Haier Fridge, modal No. HRD-331, HP-4, 300 ltr., double door from OP No. 1 on 15.07.09 for Rs. 18,000/- vide receipt No. 07940255356 dated 15.07.2009. The complainant stated that within a week the fridge started giving problems as the refrigerating was not proper and started draining water from bottom of the fridge. The complainant had filed the first complaint No. 1000181551 with the Company i.e. OP-2 on 22.7.09. OP-2 sent a technician after two days for repairing the fridge. The technician repaired the fridge but on the very same day, the fridge stopped working. The complainant informed the OP No. 2 and filed a complaint with the OP No. 2. OP No. 2 sent a technician and he stated that the complainant had to purchase a stabilizer citing low voltage as the reason for not functioning the fridge. The complainant stated that in the instruction manual and the front door of the fridge it was unequivocally mentioned that the model required no stabilizer. The OP No. 2’s technician informed the Complainant that the old fridge will be replaced by new fridge and he will get back soon. 25 days were over and with no response from the OP No. 2 he registered another complaint on 31.08.09 (complaint No. 1000196142) with OP-2 but till date no technician has visited his residence. Complainant had tried so many calls to the OP No. 2 but there was no response. The complainant has prayed for replacing the fridge in question with a new one and to pay Rs. 6000/- spent by him on conveyance and the phone calls.
No one appeared on behalf of the OPs to contest the case of the complainant and, hence, OPs were proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.10.11.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence.
We have gone through the file very carefully.
In the present case, the complainant stated that he had purchased a fridge for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- on 15.7.2009 and he had filed a first complaint on 22.7.2009 with the OP-2 that the fridge is not working properly.
In order to succeed, the complainant was required to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the fridge in question. However, he has not filed any expert report on the file to show that there is some manufacturing defect in the fridge in question. Therefore, in the absence of there being any evidence to this effect we are not inclined to believe that the fridge in question has infact any inherent or manufacturing defect which cannot be repaired/carried out. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 13.07.2016
Case No. 685/09
13.07.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
