Haryana

Kurukshetra

99/2017

Sohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                               Complaint Case No.99 of 2017.

                                                               Date of institution: 04.05.2017.

                                                               Date of decision:22.03.2018.

Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Karta Ram, R/o Kanthla Kalan, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                             Versus

1. V.K.Trading Company through proprietor, near Nilam Cinema Red Road, Kurukshetra.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office, Gurgaon, through its Sales Manager/Regional Manager. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE       SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                   Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

         

Present:      Complainant in person.   

                   Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

                   Op No.1 exparte.

                  

ORDER

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

2.                It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a refrigerator of Samsung Company from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.314 dt. 23.05.2016.  It is alleged that after some time, the said refrigerator stopped working properly regarding its cooling.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op no.1 regarding the defective refrigerator and the mechanic came to the house of complainant, who after checking the said refrigerator told the complainant that the said refrigerator is defective and it needs replacement.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for the repair or replacement of said refrigerator but the Ops did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the refrigerator with the new one and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 initially appeared but lateron did not appear on 17.07.2017 and was proceeded exparte.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complaint of complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product but the alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter 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 and in the absence of any technical report on record, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  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.                To prove his versions, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the Op No.2 did not led any evidence. 

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

6.                From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the refrigerator from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.314 dt. 23.05.2016.  The grievance of the complainant is that the compressor of said refrigerator became defective within the warranty period.  In such like circumstances, the complainant is entitled for replacement of compressor of refrigerator, if the same is found defective, free of cost.

7.                Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the complaint of complainant is partly allowed and the Op No.2 is directed to repair the refrigerator of complainant and replace the compressor of refrigerator, if the same is found defective, free of cost.  However, it is made clear that if other parts are found defective, then the complainant will pay the cost of parts to the Op No.2 and no service charges will be taken by the Op No.2.                                     

A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.      

Announced in open court:

Dt.:22.03.2018.

                                                                                       (G.C.Garg)

                                                                                       President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)             

                                                 Member