State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arun Kumar Son Of Sh. Vijay Kumar ... vs L.G. Electronics India Private Ltd., on 29 January, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 8 of 2008
Date of institution : 3.1.2008
Date of Decision : 29.1.2013
Arun Kumar son of Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Resident of Punjabi Mohalla,
Hanumangarh Town (Rajasthan).
....Appellant.
Versus
1. L.G. Electronics India Private Ltd., Registered Office Plot No. 51,
Udyog Vihar Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noida (UP) 201306.
2. Dhuria Electronics, Tehsil Road, Malout (Punjab) Tehsil Malout, Distt.
Muktsar.
3. Bharat Electronics, Bhagat Singh Chowk Hanumangarh Jankshan
(Rajasthan).
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 21.11.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Surinder Gaur, Advocate for Sh. Surinder Garg, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate For respondents No. 2&3 : Ex.-parte.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Arun Kumar(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 21.11.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant purchased LG Refrigerator from respondent No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 13,850/- vide bill No. 117 on 29.4.2006 which was manufactured by respondent No. 1 and First Appeal No. 8 of 2008 2 the same was being used by the appellant at Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). After 15-20 days of the purchase of the Refrigerator it stopped working and the appellant contacted respondent No. 2 and the defect was removed by respondent No. 2. After 5-7 days, refrigerator again stopped cooling and the appellant contacted respondents No. 2 & 3 for the replacement of the defective refrigerator with new one or to refund the price of the Refrigerator i.e. Rs. 13,850/-. But respondents No. 2 & 3 neither removed the defect nor refunded the price of the refrigerator. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to refund the price of the refrigerator alongwith interest and to pay compensation and relief's as prayed in the heading of the complaint.
3. Upon notice, the reply was filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 and respondent No. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide interim order dated 23.5.2007 of the District Forum. The answering respondents had not denied the sale of the refrigerator to the appellant but it was pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. The same was checked by Sh. Gurmit Singh, Service Engineer of respondent No. 1, who certified that there was no manufacturing defect in it. The refrigerator was not working due to low voltage of the electricity as the refrigerator required voltage of 220-240 KV. The appellant was advised to use Stabilizer with the refrigerator and it was prayed that the complaint of the appellant may be dismissed.
4. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record.
5. The present appeal is filed on the grounds that the District Forum had dismissed the complaint only relying upon the statements of the respondents but not applied its mind to discuss the averments made by First Appeal No. 8 of 2008 3 the appellant in his complaint. The order of the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises, which is liable to be set-aside.
6. There is no dispute between the parties that the refrigerator in dispute was purchased by the appellant from respondent No. 2 vide bill Ex. C-3 dated 29.4.2006 for an amount of Rs. 13,850/- with one TV set for an amount of Rs. 12,400/- and paid Rs. 26,250/- for the purchase of TV set and Refrigerator to respondent No. 2.
7. The dispute between the parties is only whether the refrigerator was suffering from manufacturing defect or not?
8. The version of the appellant is that the Refrigerator was not working properly and was not giving proper cooling. But on the other hand, the version of respondents is that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and the proper cooling was not due to low voltage of the electricity.
9. The appellant had not produced any evidence to prove his version that the refrigerator was not working properly and also not produced any expert evidence to prove his version. On the other hand, the respondents had tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmeet Singh, Service Engineer of respondent No. 1 as Ex. OP-3 and he had stated on Oath that he was working as Service Engineer of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and deals with all the complaints of the customers of the Company in Malout area. He had further submitted that he examined/inspected the refrigerator of the appellant at Hanumangarh, which was purchased by him from respondent No. 2 and found no manufacturing defect in the same and kept it under observation of 24 hours. The cooling of the refrigerator was proper. The problem in the product was due to low voltage of the electricity and the appellant was advised to use stabilizer with the refrigerator. First Appeal No. 8 of 2008 4
10. The appellant has not produced any evidence to rebut the version of the Service Engineer. Even the appellant has not challenged the qualification as well as experience of Gurmeet Singh, Service Engineer of the respondents.
11. The appellant has failed to prove his allegation regarding the non-working of the refrigerator by producing any cogent evidence to this effect.
12. The order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and based on expert evidence and there is no ground to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the appeal of the appellant, as such, the same is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.1.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
January 29, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member