BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.
Complaint Case No. : 241 of 2013
Date of Institution : 17.09.2013
Date of Decision : 26.02.2016
Neeraj Kumar son of Late Sh. Naresh Gauri R/o House No.565,Sector-10, Ambala City presently resident of H.No.330,Sector-9, Ambala City.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s V.K. Electronics, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City through its Proprietor.
2. Videocon Industries Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, SCO No.137, Second Floor, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.C. Jain, Adv. counsel for complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER.
Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) alleging therein that he purchased a Videocon Refrigerator in a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide Cash Memo No.1322 dated 24.03.2012 which was, on its installation having very low cooling, so he lodged a complaint with OP No.1 and the mechanic deputed by OP, after checking commented that the refrigerator is having some manufacturing defect in the compressor and thus the cooling system is not in a perfect working order. As such, the OP No.1 replaced the defective refrigerator with new one vide invoice-cum-delivery challan bearing No.80035552 dated 22.04.2013. Complainant further alleged that the new replaced refrigerator also suffered the same problem as that of the old refrigerator and complainant again approached the OpNo.1 but of no avail. Complainant has further submitted that due to peak summer season, he was not with other alternative and had to purchase a new refrigerator of LG Company on 18.05.2013 in a sum of Rs.23,500/- vide Memo No.462 dated 18.05.2013. Thereafter complainant requested the OPs many times to get the defective refrigerator changed with properly working refrigerator or to refund the sale price of the refrigerator but OP did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of complainant, as such, a legal notice was served upon the Ops but of no avail. Thus the complainant has alleged that the Ops have played unfair trade practice with him and are also deficient in providing proper services to him. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been filed by the complainant.
2. Upon notice, OP No.1 did not bother to appear despite service through registered notice. As such, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2013 whereas OP No.2 appeared through counsel and submitted written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts, no locus standi and no cause of action etc. On merits, it has been urged by OP No.2 that technicians changed the compressor & thermostat of the earlier refrigerator but the complainant was adamant to get the refrigerator changed with new one. So, as a mark of gesture of good will in the name & reputation of the company, on 22.04.2013, the earlier refrigerator was changed with new one. However, it has been contended by OP that company has provided Toll Free Number to its customers for any complaint but complainant did not lodge any complaint with them. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove his contention, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Rajiv Kumar authorized signatory of OP No.2 as Annexure RX and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator on 24.03.2012 which became defective and on complaint, it was replaced by the Ops with new one. However, the replaced refrigerator also created the same problem of low cooling etc. but this time despite complaint, the Ops failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant and due to rude behavior of Ops in not replacing the defective refrigerator, complainant had to purchase a new refrigerator of LG company on 18.05.2013 in a sum of Rs.23500/- vide Bill Annexure C-3 and thus the refrigerator so sold by the OP has neither been again replaced nor repaired which is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Whereas on the other hand, OP No.2 admitted in their written statement that on 22.04.2013, the defective refrigerator was replaced with new one but the defect in the replaced refrigerator was never brought into their notice by the complainant as alleged in the complaint though OP company has provided toll free number to their customers and requested for dismissing the complaint being frivolous one.
5. At the very outset, it is an admitted fact on record that Ops have replaced the refrigerator of complainant with new one during the warranty period but the version of complainant that the replaced refrigerator was also having low cooling problem is not believable since no any authentic material/document has been placed on file wherefrom it can be concluded that the replaced refrigerator was having any defect or even any complaint qua defect in replaced refrigerator was ever lodged with Ops by the complainant. As such, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his contention and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 26.02.2016 Sd/-
(A.K. SARDANA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)
MEMBER
