Haryana

Kurukshetra

122/2017

Sadhu Ram Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.K.Trading - Opp.Party(s)

Gurcharan Singh

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.122 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 15.06.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:16.04.2018.

Sadhu Ram Sharma, aged 75 years, son of Sh. Munshi Ram, resident of House No.731, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. V.K.Trading Company, Shradha Nand Chowk, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.
2. Samsung Service Centre, Kutia Wali Gali, Kurukshetra, through its Manager/Proprietor.
3.  Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipur Tech Square, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector-43, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Gurcharan Singh Ratgal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OPs.No.2 & 3.

                Op No.1 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sadhu Ram against V.K.Trading Company and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator bearing No.BBC744930539052004 of double door for a sum of Rs.29,050/- from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.SC605 dt. 01.12.2016.  It is alleged that the complainant started to use the said refrigerator in the month of March, 2017 and the said refrigerator went out of order as the cooling system of the same was not functioning properly and vegetables, fruits and other things were damaged.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops regarding the defective refrigerator and on 30.05.2017, one engineer of Ops namely Ajay visited the premises of complainant and after checking the refrigerator removed the defects from the said refrigerator.  But after some time, the aforesaid refrigerator was again showing the same problem.  It is further alleged that the complainant again approached the Op No.1 on 09.06.2017, upon which an engineer visited the house of complainant and after checking the refrigerator told the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and the same cannot be removed.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to replace the said defective refrigerator but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. 

3.            Upon notice, the Ops No.2 & 3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 27.07.2017.  Ops No.2 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product and the alleged manufacturing defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter oral submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same.  The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of this Forum; that the answering Ops have an impeccable online system to enter all service requests/complaints but in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number has been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint, no details found in the online system of the answering Ops or any of the authorized service centre.  An unassailable inference which can be drawn from this fact is that there is no issue in the unit.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the refrigerator in question was purchased on 01.12.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.29,050/-.  From the record, it is clear that the refrigerator in question became defective within the guarantee period.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with the new one from the Op No.3, who is manufacturer of refrigerator.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old refrigerator with bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.04.2018. 

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member