Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/268

G.K NIGAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIRCOOL - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058        

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution:11.4.16

Complaint case No.268 /16                                                                                                  Date of Order:18.11.16

In the matter of

 

G.K. Nigam,

EA-343,  Maya Enclave,

New Delhi-64.                                                                                                        COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

M/s Amba Aircool,

WZ-297, Hari Nagar,

Jail Road, New Delhi-64.                                                                                                OPPSITE PARTY-1

 

M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

76, Block 14,

Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15.                                                                               OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of present complaint are that the complainant purchased two air conditioners from Opposite Party-1 for sale consideration of Rs.43000/- vide invoice No.AA/4744 on 31.3.15  delivered and installed on 5.4.15 vide

2/-

challan No.531 and report NO.1836.  The air conditioners had warranty for one year with three free services from the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties did not provide any free service.  Complainant on 3.4.16  requested Opposite Party-2 to provide free service within warranty period. But  the Opposite Party-2  refused to provide free service on the ground that the air conditioners are beyond warranty.  The complainant told the Opposite Party that the air conditioners were delivered and installed on 5.4.15, therefore, the air conditioners were well within warranty.  But the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the  request of the complainant.    The Opposite Parties adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the present complaint for directions to Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2500/- per air conditioner for not providing three free services  and Rs.5,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties.  But none appeared on their behalf despite service.  Therefore, the Opposite Party-1 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 1.6.16 and Opposite Party-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2.8.16. 

            When the complainant  was asked to lead exparte evidence, he filed evidence by way of affidavit dated 1.9.16  and relied upon invoice No.AA4744 dated 31.3.15,  copy of delivery challan dated 5.4.15 and installation report dated 5.4.15.  He once again reiterated stand  taken in the complaint in the affidavit dated 1.9.16.  The complainant  deposed that the Opposite Parties were to provide three free services of the  air conditioners within warranty.But  they failed to provide the same.   

            On perusal of the documents it reveals that the complainant purchased two air conditioners from Opposite Party-1 vide invoice NO.AA/4744 dated 31.3.15 for sale consideration of Rs.43,000/-.  The air conditioners were delivered and installed at the premises of the complainant on 5.4.15 by Opposite Party-1. 

 

3/-

             Counsel for complainant has filed written arguments. We have also heard  Ld. counsel for complainant and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

              The complainant from the  affidavit, invoice, deliver challan, and installation report has been able to show that two air  conditioners were purchased by him  from Opposite Party-1 for sale consideration of Rs.43,000/-on 31.3.15 , delivered and installed on 5.4.15 .  There is sufficient material on record to show that the air conditioners were within warranty.   However, the complainant is unable to show that the Opposite Parties are liable to provide free service.  There is no material on record to support version of the complainant that the Opposite Partites were to provide three  free services.  The complainant has failed to produce any term and condition to this effect. The affidavitof the complainant only is not sufficient to prove that the Opposite Parties were under obligation to provide three free serviceswithin warranty.  Therefore, the complainant is unable to prove that the Opposite Parties were to provide any free service what to speak of three free service.  Hence, there is nothing to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   

In the light of above discussion and observations, the complaint has no merit.   Hence fails.  Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.   

 

Order pronounced on :18.11.2016

  • Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
  • Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.