Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/82/2020

Mitali D/o Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep kaur

02 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2020

Date of Instt.:17.02.2020.

Date of Decision: 02.03.2020

 

Mitali d/o Sh.Raj Kumar resident of house No.539/3, Gopi Vihar,Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.Bharti Electricals, Main Bazar, Shahabad Maarkanda, District Kurukshetra, throughits Proprietor.

2.The Manager, KENT  RO SYSTEMS LTD. , Khasra No.93, Village Bantakheri, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (Uttarkahand).

3.Marketing Manager, Kent R.O.System Limited, E-6-7 &8, Sector 59, Noida, Uttar Pardesh.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

 

Present:  Ms.Amandeep Kaur Legal counsel for complainant.. ORDER

              Heard on the maintainability of the complaint.

2.           The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one water purifier (Mineral R.O.) make one Kent from the OP no.1. an authorized dealer of OP no.2 and 3 vide bill No.405 dated 10.09.2016 on payment of Rs.16,500/-.  Soon, after its installation, the R.O. stopped working properly. .The complainant made complaint on 20.12.2016 to the OP no.1 regarding defect in the R.O. and requested to replace the same as it was within warranty period. The OP No.1 deputed one mechanic but even after its service, R.O. did not work properly.  The complainant again made complaint to the OP No.1 who told that he will inform the OP No.2 and 3 regarding the trouble and only on recommendation of OP No.2 and 3, he will replace the R.O.in question. OPs sent their mechanic on  7.05.2017 who serviced the water purifier but even after service, R.O.did not work properly. Therefore, the complainant a gain made complaint to OP No.1 and requested that the water purifier is not working properly and requested to replace the same. OP No.1 told the complainant that her water purifier is within warranty and she need not to worry and the water purifier would be replaced with a new one. Mechanic of the OPs visited the house of the complainant on 14.08.2017 and did service of the water purifier but after some days it again started giving problem and stopped working properly. The complainant again made complaint to the OPs and mechanic of the OPs visited the house of the complainant on 11.11.2018 and checked the R.O. and replaced some defective parts of the OPs against the payment of Rs.3170/- made by the complainant vide bill No.146 dated 11.11.2018. The complainant when asked for payment of Rs.3170/- the mechanic told that warranty of the water purifier has expired.  The complainant has averred that after so many requests and complaints, the R.O.has not been repaired properly by the OPs nor it has been replaced with a new one and the OPs also illegally charged Rs.3170/- from the complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs to refund the cost of the R.O. i.e. Rs.16,500/- and Rs.4170/- charged from the complainant for repair of the water purifier but the OPs refused to do the needful, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs has filed the present complaint and prayed for  refund of Rs.20670/- ( which includes cost and repair charges) alongwith the compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

3.           The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that soon after the purchase of the water purifier it stopped working properly and he made complaints but the water purifier has not been repaired properly. He has also argued that mechanic of the OPs charged Rs.3170/- for the defective parts, but the perusal of the  file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any receipt of alleged payment of Rs.3170/- charged by the mechanic of the OPs for the defective parts. The complainant has also failed to place on record copy of any job sheet vide which the water purifier has been repaired by the mechanic OPs. The documents  Annexure A to E placed on the fle by the complainant are not job sheets rather these documents show the AMC contract and free services of the water purifier and does not show that there was any defect in the water purifier of the complainant.  The water purifier in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.09.2016 as per copy of the bill placed on the file and now it is 2020 and the complainant has filed the present complaint on 17.02.2020 and the complaint before this Forum could only be filed by the complainant upto 10.09.2017 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 17.02.2020. The water purifier was having one year warranty period, therefore, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation because a complaint can only be filed within a period of two years from the date of accrual of the case of action. The documents placed on the file by the complainant are regarding Annual Maintenance Contract and service of the water purified and these documents could not show that there was any defect in the water purifier and the same was repaired by the OPs during the warranty period of thereafter.  Therefore, the present complaint is time barred and deserves to be dismissed on this ground.

 

4.           The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record citation titled as Miss Sapna Ghai Vs. Sipani Automobiles Limited etc.  1994(1) CLT 517 and argued that there is no delay in filing the present complaint, but the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Miss Sapna Ghai’s case)Supra), defects in the vehicle were pointed out within the warranty period and complainant had placed on record copies of the bills  whereas in the present case there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant ever lodged any complaint and she has failed to place on record copy of any job sheet to show that water purifier was ever got repaired by her from the OPs.

5.           As per Section 24-A, Limitation periodL1) The District Forum, the State Commission  or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

              (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing  the complaint within such period.

              PROVIDED  that no  such complaint be entertained unless the National Commission or State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records the reasons for condoning such delay.

6.           In the case the R.O.was purchased by the complainant on 10.09.2016. The warranty period was for one year and the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 17.02.2020 i.e. after the period of limitation of two years. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant alongwith the present complaint, therefore, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Otherwise also, as discussed above, complainant could not be able to prove on record that there was any defect in the water purifier.

 

7.           So, in view of our aforementioned findings and observations, we dismiss the present complaint being barred by limitation. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 02.03.2020.                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                   President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),          (Neelam)            

   Member                                   Member.