Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/original complainant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 16/01/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.141/2009 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad. By the said order complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
This appeal was filed on 16/01/2010. Appeal is within limitation. It appeared for the first time for admission before the State Commission on 22/02/2010 and we have heard this appeal and we found it necessary that in order to decide the claim of the appellant, the warranty card which is issued by the respondent is necessary and, therefore, by order dated 22/02/2010 appellant was directed to produce copy of the warranty card and the appeal was adjourned to 03/04/2010.
On 03/04/2010, Commission was busy in some other work and, therefore, appeal was adjourned to 21/06/2010. On 21/06/2010 also Commission was busy in other matters and, therefore, it was adjourned to 27/08/2010. On 27/08/2010 matter appeared before the State Commission and we noticed that the Ld.counsel for the appellant and the appellant both are absent from 03/04/2010 onwards. Thus, after the direction was given for production of warranty card, appellant and appellant’s advocate are absent. It was noted in order dated 27/08/2010 and by way of last chance and in the interest of justice time was granted on payment of cost of `500/- since there was no legal and valid ground to adjourn the matter. Order dated 27/08/2010 is available on Confonet programme in Case Status. Therefore, even though they are absent, they are supposed to know the order which has been passed and it was the bounden duty of the advocate and party to remain present before this Commission. However, for the best reasons known to them they are absent. They have also failed to deposit `500/- as per order dated 27/08/2010 and they have also failed to produce warranty card which is directed to be produced for adjudication of the claim.
Grievance of the appellant before the forum is that on 21/09/2007 appellant purchased A.C. of LG Company from the opponents for consideration of `17,000/- and the said A.C. stopped to work w.e.f. 19/04/2008. Grievance was registered with the opponents and they examined the A.C. and the repairer which sent by the opponents found that necessity to replace the compressor. He had taken AC with assurance that within one year compressor would be changed and accordingly, it was changed.
It is further stated that on 16/5/2009, A.C. again stopped working and the complaint was registered and it was examined by the person sent by the opponents. However, he had not repaired and since then A.C. was/is not operating and, therefore complaint was filed.
In District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum original opponent no.3’s notice was returned back as unclaimed. However, opponent nos.1&2 were served and they had not filed their written versions. In fact claim of the appellant is required to be considered in the light of the warranty which was issued by the opponents at the time of purchase of A.C. because it appears that once the compressor was changed and that was changed because it was within warranty period, as the A.C. was purchased on 21/09/2007. Second time it stopped to work on 26/05/2009, so that is beyond the period of two years. Normally, warranty which is given in respect of electrical goods like A.C. is for a period of one year and, therefore, we were/are interested in knowing what is the actual period of warranty and directed appellant to produce warranty card on record. What we have noticed is that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had also considered this aspect and, therefore, claim was rejected. However, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also warranty card was not produced. But we do not want to be too technical in this respect. If the warranty card gives benefit to the consumer we are with him but it is the consumer who is avoiding to attend before the State Commission and in spite of sufficient time given to him has failed to produce the warranty card. Under these circumstances, there is no other alternative left with us but to dismiss the appeal having found that there is no substance in the appeal. Hence the order:-
ORDER
Appeal is hereby rejected.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 02nd December 2010
