DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 327/2018

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency in service in selling the defective Refrigerator by OP1 as manufactured by OP2. 
2. Before coming to the brief facts as stated by the complainant, it is a matter of record that Complainant initially made three OPs and OP3 being the Service Centre but ultimately OP3 was removed from the array of parties on the statement of Counsel for the Complainant and as such now there are only two OPs as mentioned in the cause title. 
3.  Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one Refrigerator from OP1 for an amount of Rs.29,000/- on 28.06.2017 and this Refrigerator was working well but in January, 2018 the said Refrigerator was not working properly as it has a lesser cooling and ice was not being frozen upon which the complainant made a call to the OP.  OP3 since deleted has sent a service technician to attend the complaint and he increased/reset the temperature.  On account of this although the ice started freezing but other vegetables and fruits in the Refrigerator also started freezing and ultimately they were rotten on account of extra cooling effect and due to increasing the cooling of the Refrigerator the fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese etc. got frozen and finally became rotten.  The technician also informed the complainant that fault is on account of non-installation of the trolly and the complainant even purchased the same but despite having purchased the trolly, the Refrigerator was not working well.  Thereafter, he wrote various letters dated 20.02.2018, 05.02.2018, 09.02.2018, 10.02.2018, 16.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 22.02.2018 but none of the such letter were duly replied and aggrieved from the conduct of OPs he served a legal notice to the OP which was not complied with and ultimately he filed the present complaint before the Commission thereby seeking direction to OP1 and OP2 to refund Rs.29,000/- and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation charges of Rs.15,000/-. 
4. OPs were served and OP1 filed its reply taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable as OP1 has sold the product of OP2 and Bill/Invoice specifically mentions that all the warranties of the goods sold is only of the manufacturer and therefore complaint case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against OP1 and it is further submitted that apart from having purchased the Refrigerator there is no allegation against OP1 w.r.t. any deficiency.  It is further submitted the role of the OP1 is only of a dealer/ distributor of the OP2 and his duty is limited to the extent of telling the functions of the sold electrical appliances to the customers and nothing more than that and even as per record the Refrigerator purchased by the complainant was in perfect/good condition at the time of delivery and therefore the present complaint against OP1 is false and frivolous and may kindly be dismissed.    
5. On merit the purchase of Refrigerator is not disputed however it is specifically denied that the ice was not freezing or the ice cream or ice cubes kept in the freezer got melted within short span of time.  The writing of letter by complainant to OP2 through e-mails are also denied for want of knowledge as no copy of such alleged complaints has been addressed to OP1. Contents of preliminary objections are reiterated and it is submitted that complaint of the complainant against OP1 be dismissed. 
6. OP2 has filed its Written Statement stating that the Refrigerator had been purchased on 28.06.2017 and first complaint was raised by the Complainant in January, 2018 w.r.t. freezer related problem and the same was resolved by service engineer by cleaning the drain pipe and when the complainant lodged the complaint again in February the answering respondent rectified the same but complainant was not satisfied and started demanding refund of the Refrigerator’s price despite the fact that there was no problem in the Refrigerator as no part of the Refrigerator was ever replaced, till date.  The Complainant in the whole complaint have only mentioned the single allegation w.r.t. Refrigerator and which defect had been rectified by the OPs and therefore the complainant’s seeking refund is not justifiable nor the complainant has come to the Commission with clean hands.  Complaint is an abuse of the process of law and no documentary evidence is filed to authenticate its complaint.  No opinion of an expert has been taken/filed on Commission’s record w.r.t. any manufacturing defect and as such it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed against OP2.
7. Complainant has filed Rejoinder to the Written Statement of both the OPs and all the parties have filed their respective evidences to support their respective contentions along with the documents. 
8. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
9. The Complainant has filed bill of purchase of the Refrigerator and about ten e-mails written by it to the OP.  Apart from that there is no document filed by the complainant.  The basic allegation of the complainant appears to be that despite having written so many e-mails, the OP2 has not rectified the defect.  While perusing the file such emails have been replied by the OP2 thereby stating that the defect in the Refrigerator has been rectified and the complaint is closed.  Writing of various letters after this communication received by the complainant is not supported with any document as to what exactly was the fault thereafter.  There is no documentary evidence placed on record after the Refrigerator was once rectified w.r.t. the complaint that ice cream or the ice /other fruits /vegetables / eatables are getting perished on account of lesser temperature or higher temperature.  There is no opinion of the expert filed by the complainant on Commission’s record and contention of OP2 is well found that apart from a single complaint w.r.t. melting the ice cream/ ice etc. in short span of time there is no other formal report by any of the technician of the OP w.r.t some defect in the product as mentioned in the complaint by the complainant.  As far as OP1 is concerned no allegation of deficiency has proved alleged and as far as OP3 is concerned who is the service agent of OP2 has already been deleted.  To fix the liability of OP2 i.e. who is the manufacturer of the product opinion of an expert was required from some independent/expert witnesses, who should have been examined by the complainant to get his contention corroborated that the ice or ice cream in the Refrigerator was getting melted in short span of time.  Even what is that ‘short span of time’ has not been explained i.e. whether it was a few minutes or few hours.  There is no report on record, as to how much the situation w.r.t. the said defect improved.  The complaint therefore appear to be too vague to be considered.        
10. Therefore, in the considered  opinion of this Commission the Complainant has not been able to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator sold by OP1 as manufactured by OP2 and accordingly complaint of the complainant is dismissed. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.   

Announced on 26.05.2023.