BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:221 of 2013
Date of Institution: 17.04.2013
Date of Decision:07.04.2017
Umang aged 26 years son of Shri Ram Sushil Halwasia, resident of Patram Gate, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Deepak Electronics, Thakur Bir Singh Marg near Shakuntla Palace, Hansi Road, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- Videocon Authorized Service Centre, Bhiwani through Authorized Signatory (Jagat Colony, Bhiwani).
- Videocon Company (Address to be disclosed by Ops no. 1 & 2).
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present:- Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
OP no. 1 exparte.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased Videocon Air Conditioner No. VST-5233 vide bill No. 103323 dated 03.03.2009 amounting to Rs. 18000/- from OP no. 1 with five year warranty. It is alleged that soon after purchase, the air conditioner became defective. It is alleged that the complainant made complaint to the OP no. 1, who repaired the air conditioner of the complainant in the year 2010. Again in the year 2011, on the complaint of the complainant his air conditioner was repaired by the OP no. 2 for which it charged Rs. 700/- from the complainant for repair. It is alleged that in the year 2012 the complainant lodged a complaint with OP no. 3 but the complainant did not received any response from the Ops. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint.
2. OP no. 1 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.06.2013.
3. On appearance, the OPs no. 2 & 3 filed written statement alleging therein that the present complaint is time barred, as the AC was purchased on 03.03.2009 and present complaint has been filed on 17.04.2013. It is submitted that the Ops have given one 1 year warranty of AC and 5 year warranty is only of compressor of the AC. It is submitted that the complainant has made the complaint of the AC in the year 2010 for the 1st time after expiry of the 1 year warranty period, but even after that the AC of the complainant was repaired free of costs and no money has been charged from him. It is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the AC and the defect in the AC was occurs due to improper handling by the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question from the OP no. 1 vide bill dated 03.03.2009 Annexure C-1. After the purchase of the said air conditioner it became faulty. The complainant made complaint to the OP no. 1, who repaired the air conditioner of the complainant in the year 2010. Again in the year 2011, on the complaint of the complainant his air conditioner was repaired by the OP no. 2 for which it charged Rs. 700/- from the complainant for repair. In the year 2012 the complainant lodged a complaint with OP no. 3 but the complainant did not receive any response from the Ops.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops no. 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that there is only one year warranty for air conditioner and 5 years warranty of the compressor was given from the date of its purchase. The mechanic of the company repaired the air conditioner of the complainant, free of cost after one year of its purchase. The air conditioner of the complainant is working properly. The air conditioner has not having any manufacturing defect. The complainant used the air conditioner for more than one year without any problem. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 2 & 3.
8. Admittedly, the air conditioner in question was purchased by the complainant on 03.03.2009. The complainant in support of his contention has placed on the file the bill of air conditioner and warranty card of air conditioner. According to the warranty card there was one year warranty of the air conditioner and 5 year warranty of the compressor was given from the date of purchase of the air conditioner. As per the allegations of the complainant, the air conditioner was repaired by the OP no. 1 in the year 2010 but has not given the exact date of repair. The complainant has failed to bring any cogent evidence on the file that the air conditioner has having any manufacturing defect. Even the complainant has not given the specific relevant dates in the pleadings. The pleadings of the complainant are ambiguous. The complainant purchased the air conditioner on 03.03.2009. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 17.04.2013 after more than 4 years from the date of purchase. The complainant has not alleged any defect in the compressor of the air conditioner, which carries 5 years warranty. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any substance in the complaint. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 07.04.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
