Delhi

East Delhi

CC/436/2014

PARESH PATEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no          436 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  29/05/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 29/05/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          30/05/2017   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr Paresh Patel, adult 

S/o Sh Makodbhai Patel   

R/o A-2/1, Top Floor, Nr Lal Quarter,

Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110095……………………………………….………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Vijay Sales   

Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092

 

2-M/s Hitachi India  

A-15, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area 

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110065……..………...………………………  Opponents

 

                                      

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case

  

Complainant, Paresh Patel purchased one fridge on 10/05/2013 having model BRDH303 Hitachi for an amount Rs 53000/-from OP1/seller as marked Annexure C1.

After some time, said fridge had some cooling problem, so contacted OP1 who advised to contact customer care of OP2 / manufacturer and lodged complaint on 13/05/2013. It had been stated that service engineer rectified the complaint and after some time again had same problem, so complaint was lodged again with OP2 on 22/06/2013 and it was also attended and problem was rectified.

It had been stated that complainant was facing same problems repeatedly up to 20/02/2014 even after replacing cooling kit on 20/02/2014 the cooling problem remained as annexed Annexure C-2-8, so complainant sent a legal notice on 29/03/2014 for refund or replacement of fridge as annexure C9. When no reply received of his legal notice, he filed this complaint claiming refund of Rs 53000/-with 24% interest or replacement of fridge with compensation of Rs One lakh.

Notices were served. OP1 filed their brief as memo of appearance and after receiving a copy of complaint, did not file written statement or their evidence on affidavit. Even after serving notices to OP1, they did not put their appearance, so the case proceeded Ex Parte. OP2 filed their written statement and admitted that the said fridge was purchased from OP1, but denied all the allegations against them as totally wrong and incorrect. It was stated that whenever complaint was received by OP2, service engineer was sent to rectify the problems during one year of standard warranty. All his complaint pertained to accessories and they were of minor complaints, still the cooling coil was replaced and other services were done. Hence, there was no deficiency in their services on their part and also had no manufacturing defect in the fridge, so this complaint may be dismissed. 

Complainant submitted rejoinder with Ex parte evidence on affidavit and affirmed himself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in his complaint and the said fridge had manufacturing defect, no evidences were submitted by OP2 on affidavit. OP 2 and complainant submitted their written arguments. Complainant had also not submitted any evidence of service taken from elsewhere to sustain his allegation of manufacturing defect even after expiry of warranty tenure or during the pendency of his complaint.

 

Arguments were heard from both the counsels of OP2 and complainant and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It was admitted by OP2 that the said fridge was purchased by the complainant from OP1, but denied to have any manufacturing defect. Also it has been seen that there was no evidence of service report submitted by the complainant that could prove that the said fridge had manufacturing defect or its compressor had any problem except number of emails and legal notice. In absence of any concrete evidence from complainant, it is thus observed that the fridge had some accessories related problems which were rectified by OP2. OP1 being the seller, had no liability in providing services.

So, we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect in the said fridge. Thus, this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed without any cost to order.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

        (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                        Shri Sukhdev Singh - President