1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he had purchased LG’s GL210PRLV010832 refrigerator from OP.2 on 01.08.2013 on payment of Rs.20, 800/- and after 3 months of purchase the complainant noticed lower basement of the refrigerator is slanting and broken and in spite of complaint, nobody responded.  It is submitted that on 01.3.2014 someone reached the house of the complainant and corrected the bills and assured to change the refrigerator as it has manufacturing defect.  It is further submitted that on contact, the said people denied any replacement.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to replace the refrigerator with a new one or refund the cost thereof and to pay other expenses besides Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 3 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and also raised certain preliminary objections.  It is contended that averment of Para-4 of the complainant contradicts with the averments of Para-1 with regard to date of purchase of the refrigerator.  Denying any defect in the refrigerator, the Ops contended that whenever a complaint is lodged before the Ops or Authorised Service Centre, a complaint number is provided to the customer for all references and job sheet is generated but the complainant has not lodged any complaint before the Ops regarding defect in the refrigerator.  The Ops further contended that the allegations of the complainant regarding inherent manufacturing defect is baseless and said averment is not supported with any materials on record.  With these and other contentions denying any manufacturing defect and denying any deficiency in service, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged refrigerator on 01.3.2013 but not on 01.08.2013 to the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant has never approached the OP with complaint of any nature regarding defects in the refrigerator.  The OP has also no knowledge whether the complainant has registered any complaint as alleged before the Authorised Service Centre of the Company.  The OP contended that the refrigerator was offered for sale to the complainant after duly checked and demonstration and the complainant has never contacted him either in person or telephonically for the defects in the product.  Denying correction of bill and assurance by some unknown person and replacement of refrigerator, the OP also contended that after sale of product, service is being taken up by ASC of the Company and the consumer should avail it.  It is also further contended that tainted chalan copy has been filed by the complainant in place of original money receipt where the original price of the refrigerator has been quoted.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  We have heard from the Ops through their respective A/Rs.  The complainant filed written argument.  We also perused the materials available on record.

5.                    In this case purchase of LG refrigerator by the complainant from OP.2 for Rs.19, 254/- with reference to Chalan No.2789 on 01.03.2013 but not on 01.8.2013 is an admitted fact.  The OP.2 has filed copy of retail invoice which is available on record.  The complainant stated that after 3 months of its purchase his family detected that the lower basement portion of the refrigerator is slanting and broken.  Since then he was contacting Ops but to no response.  The Ops have challenged the said allegations of the complainant stating that they have no knowledge about the defect in the refrigerator and the complainant has never approached them regarding his allegations.  The Ops 1 & 3 specifically stated that whenever a complaint is lodged before the Ops or directly before ASC, a complaint number is provided for all references and correspondences and job card is generated.  In this case it is seen that the complainant has not referred any complaint number or job card in his complaint petition regarding his allegation that he has made complaint to any of the Ops.

6.                     Further the complainant stated that on 01.3.14 someone reached in his house and corrected the bill issued by OP.2 and assured to change the refrigerator with a new one as the defect is inherent in nature.  The Ops denied the said averments of the complainant stating that the averments are not supported by any materials on record. The complainant has not mentioned the name of said unknown person and who is he.  In absence of details of the person who assured to replace the refrigerator, the bare averment of the complainant stands no leg to stand.

7.                     The OP.2 stated that the cost of the refrigerator is Rs.19, 254/- whereas the complainant stated that the cost is Rs.20, 800/-.  In this connection perused the materials available on record.  The complainant has filed copy of Chalan No.2789 dt.01.08.2013 (appears to be tainted) but the OP.2 has filed a copy of said chalan and retail invoice from which it was ascertained that the cost of refrigerator is Rs.19, 254/-.  All the Ops stated in their respective counters that the averment at para-1 of the complaint contradicts to the averment at para-4 regarding date of purchase of refrigerator.  It is seen that the complainant has stated that at para-1 of his complainant that he purchased the refrigerator on 01.08.13 but at para-4 it has been stated that the cause of action arose on and from the date of purchase i.e. 01.03.13 of the refrigerator.  The copy of warranty card issued by OP.2 and filed by the complainant shows that the date of sale is 01.03.2013.  From this fact it is seen that the date mentioned in the chalan copy filed by the complainant has been tainted by someone.

8.                     Further the complainant averred that the refrigerator supplied by the Ops is having manufacturing defect and accordingly the complainant has also prayed for replacement of refrigerator.  It is not proved as to who assured the complainant that the refrigerator is to be replaced as it has manufacturing defect.  The Ops stated that the complainant has not lodged any complaint regarding defect in the refrigerator at any point of time.  Further the allegation of manufacturing defect is not supported by any materials on record.

9.                     In this case it is seen that the Op-2 has specifically denied regarding any knowledge or complaint of defect in goods of the complainant as no complaint has been made before him.  He stated that the complainant might have contacted the ASC of the Company.  The said ASC has not been made as a party to this case.  The Ops 1 & 3 also stated that no complaint is ever made by the complainant before the ASC, Branch Office at Bhubaneswar or their Head Office at New Delhi.

10.                   The complainant in his petition dt.08.06.15 stated that Company representative took photograph of the defective parts of the refrigerator to forward the same for suitable replacement on the point of manufacturing defect and one Santosh has corrected the bill.  No proper identity of Mr. Santosh is on record.  The OP.2 stated in his objection petition dt.19.10.15 that this is a fresh allegation made by the complainant and he does not know to any Santosh.  We do not understand as to how the complainant allowed the said person to make correction of the bill without the knowledge of bill issuing OP and without the knowledge of other Ops also.  However, it is seen that the said averment and allegation of the complainant were not made in his complaint petition.  The complainant also failed to prove that he had lodged complaint regarding manufacturing defect or any kind of defect in the refrigerator.

11.                   In view of above facts and circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops or the Ops committed any unfair trade practice.  Therefore, due to lack of merit, the complaint petition needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)