SHASHI GUPTA Vs. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant /complainant against the order, dated 17.5.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (herein after to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 737 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case, are that the refrigerator of the complainant was giving some trouble and there was no cooling in the two lower compartments of the refrigerator. The complainant contacted OP No. 1 on 11.4.2010 on its Toll Free Number, for rectification of the defect. The OP No. 1 deputed its local dealer i.e. OP No. 2 to inspect the refrigerator. The technician of OP No.2, after inspection, suggested to the complainant to get the gas filled in the refrigerator and also assured that, thereafter, the Refrigerator would work perfectly. The complainant agreed and paid a sum of Rs. 1,550 to OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 took the refrigerator to its workshop and kept the same for two days and, thereafter, - sent the refrigerator back, by saying that the defect was removed and the gas was filled. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 100 as carriage charges, as demanded by OP No. 2. It was stated that after receiving the refrigerator from OP No. 2, the complainant found that there was stillno cooling in the lower compartments and when he contacted OP No. 2 in this regard, there was no response. It was further stated that the complainant again registered a complaint with OP No. 1 at its Toll Free Number on 7.5.2010 and, thereafter, the OP No. 2 again visited the house of complainant and after checking the refrigerator, he told that the gas has not been fully filled and again took the refrigerator for two days. Thereafter, after receiving back the refrigerator from OP No. 2, there was again no cooling in the lower compartments and also there was a strange sound in the machine. The complainant again contacted OP No. 1 at its Toll Free Number on 31.5.2010 and the Engineer of the company checked the refrigerator and found that OP No. 2 had overfilled the gas. The said engineer took out some gas and also cut the pipe and assured that the refrigerator would now work properly. It was further stated that the sound from the refrigerator stopped but again there was no cooling in the lower compartments, as such, he again lodged a complaint with OP No. 1 on 19.6.2010 but thereafter nobody came to attend the complaint. The complainant also tried to contact OP No. 2 directly, but there was no response from OP No. 2 also. It was further stated that since, it was peak summer days and it was difficulty to survive without refrigerator, therefore, he purchased a new refrigerator. It was further stated that the above said acts of OPs amounted to deficiency, in service. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) NONE appeared on behalf of OP No. 1, despite service. Hence, OP No. 1 was proceeded against ex parte.