Order No.  9  dt.  28/04/2017

          The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant visited the branch office of the o.p. 2 to purchase a refrigerator manufactured by o.p. 1. Complainant purchased a refrigerator from o.p. 2 upon making full consideration of Rs. 34,000/-. Then the complainant requested the representative of o.p. 1 to install the said refrigerator at his residence. After installation it was discovered that the refrigerator was defective. It was further observed that there were several dent in the refrigerator and refrigerator was not working properly and failed to generate any cooling. Complainant immediately informed the matter to the o.p. 2 about the inherent defect of the product and requested to replace the refrigerator with a new one. O.p. 2 refused to accept the contention of the complainant. However upon physical verification they have promised to replace the said refrigerator but till date same has not been done. The complainant informed the matter to o.p.s 1 and 2 about the problem but o.p.s have never paid any heed to such request. Upon receiving of an e-mail dt. 18/09/2016 complainant was contacted by one Mr. Sunil from customer service department of o.p. 1. When complainant contacted service manager of o.p. 1 he expressed his inability to replace the said refrigerator with a new model. Since the refrigerator was within warranty period hence the act of the o.p.s amounts to deficiency in service. The representative of o.p.s suggested the complainant that they would replace the material with another model of higher value for which complainant was required to pay an additional amount. Complainant was shocked and surprised to see the conduct of the o.p.s. Being dissatisfied with the conduct of o.p.s complainant lodged a written complaint on 22/07/2016 with the traders association of o.p.s. But o.p. failed and neglected to comply with their obligation towards their consumers. Then the complainant sent a legal notice to the o.p.s dt. 26/09/2016. But o.p.s did not pay any heed. Hence the application praying for direction upon the o.p.s to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one along with compensation of Rs. 35,000/- and cost.

        The o.p.s contested the case by filing w/v.

        In their w/v o.p. 1 denied all the material allegations inter alia stated that the office of o.p. 1 is situated at Block BP, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 91 which does not come within the jurisdiction of this Forum. complainant wrongly stated that the office of o.p. 1 is situated at 39-S-A, Harish Mukherjee Street, Kolkata – 25. The facts of the instant case are full of misrepresentation of actual facts and far from the truth. Complainant only submitted Invoice cum Purchase Bill, but the complainant did not submit any piece of document which will substantiate that o.p. 1 will be liable. Complainant also did not mention any name and address of service centre and did not make  service centre a party. Since o.p. 1 is not a service provider they have no liability to provide any sort of service. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. 1. Complainant also did not file any warranty card with signature and stamp of the dealer. O.p. 1 had not any knowledge about the alleged defect of the refrigerator. Therefore the complainant has failed to establish the actual defects of the refrigerator. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed against o.p. 1.

        In their w/v o.p. 2 also denied all the material allegations inter alia stated that the instant complaint petition suffers from lack of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. The complaint is not maintainable since he did not furnish any expert opinion to substantiate the complaint. The complainant was fully satisfied with the demonstration given by o.p. 2. Thereafter he agreed to purchase the said refrigerator from o.p. 2. Complainant came before this Forum regarding problem of not cooling of said refrigerator. O.p. no. 2 is the dealer. As per terms of warranty a dealer is abided by the rules and regulations of principal, i.e. manufacturing company and they have no role regarding the replacement. After receiving the complaint from the complainant o.p. 2 immediately referred the matter to o.p. 1 and o.p. 1 took immediate and proper steps. O.p. 2 acted as a mediator between the complainant and o.p. 1. From the four corners of the complaint petition it is clear that o.p. 2 in no way liable and the hence the case is liable to be dismissed against them with cost.

Decisions with reasons :-

        We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant purchase one Videocon refrigerator bearing model no. V67WFP3/570L Stainless Steel on 01/02/2016 for which complainant paid the consideration of Rs. 34,000/- through cheque against proper receipt. Complainant purchased the refrigerator from the showroom of o.p. 2 through financer Bajaj Finance Ltd. on 01/02/2016. Thereafter we find one document dt. 18/09/2016 issued by customer care service of the company and complainant also sent an e-mail with request to replace the refrigerator with a new one. But when complainant informed the matter to o.p.s, no document has been annexed to that effect. The refrigerator in question was purchased on 01/02/2016 but complainant annexed the copy of all e-mail correspondences of September, 2016. If there is dent in the refrigerator and the cooling problem arose from the very beginning complainant could have informed the matter to o.p. 1 immediately after the date of purchase. Complainant alleged the inaction on the part of the o.p.s. but when complainant first informed the matter to o.p.s he could not mention any date. From the documents filed by complainant we have observed that the customer care department of o.p. 1 always attended the complainant’s grievance and took care by providing the name and mobile no. of the concerned personnel. But complainant could not furnish any service job sheet. Probably complainant had not allowed the service engineer to inspect the refrigerator rather he insisted on replacement of refrigerator. Moreover complainant did not make customer care office as a party. Complainant also did not furnish any warranty document. Complainant stated in para 10 of his petition that o.p.s suggested for replacement of material with another model of higher value but complainant nowhere mentioned that he agreed to that offer. Moreover in the four corner of petition we have not found that complainant requested the service team to visit his residence to inspect the refrigerator in question. The burden of proof lies upon the complainant whether there is any dent or cooling problem in question. In the absence of any service job sheet or any expert report we cannot say that the refrigerator in question suffers from any defect. In the w/v o.p. 1 clearly stated that if there was any opportunity to repair the refrigerator within the warranty period o.p. 1 could have done it. If any problem arises for any product within the warranty period the duty of the manufacturer is to provide service at free of cost. The question of replacement does not arise at all if there is no inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore the prayer for replacement of refrigerator by the complainant is no tenable in the eye of law.

        O.p. 2 is the dealer of o.p. 1. After selling the product there is no obligation on their part. Rather in the instant case o.p. 2 acted as a mediator between the complainant and o.p. 1 as a goodwill gesture.

        In view of above we find no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s and as such complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

               Hence,

ordered

        that the case no. CC/6/2017 is dismissed on contest against the o.p.s  without cost.

        Certified copy of this be supplied to the parties free of cost.