Mr D.K.Mohanty, learned counsel files Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents which is accepted and kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the respondents. None appears for the appellant.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased one 1.5 ton LIoyed Split Air Conditioner on 20.5.2011 from the shop room of OP No.2. It is alleged inter alia that from the date of installation the Air Conditioner was not giving cooling properly as the outdoor and indoor units given by OP No.2 are of different make and different terms. Complainant contacted OP No.2 on many occasions over phone and personal visit. OP No.2 inspected the Air Conditioner and found mismatching of indoor and outdoor units. However later on OP No.2 changed the outdoor unit by one old unit but the Air Conditioner failed to work properly. So, the complaint was filed.
4. OP No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable because its head office and branch office are not at Cuttack and no document is filed to prove the purchase of Air Conditioner from OP No. 1. So, the complaint is not maintainable.
5. OP No.2 filed written version stating that they are no way related to M/s C M N International, M/s N.S. Refrigeration & Co. It is further stated that the Air Conditioner in dispute was not purchased from M/s N.S. Refrigeration and Co. Since the complainant did not produce any document the case was dismissed.
5. After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
In view of the above discussions, the consumer complaint is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.”
6. In the appeal memo, it is argued that learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the complaint with proper perspectives. According to the appeal memo the air conditioner was only manufactured by OP No.1. He also stated that District Forum has not applied judicial mind to all points raised by the complainant. Therefore, he submits to allow the appeal by allowing the complaint.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned District Forum has adjudicated the matter with proper perspectives because no document has been filed by the complainant to prove his case. According to him no warranty or invoice was filed to prove the case of the complainant. It is for the complainant to prove the case. When the complainant failed to prove the case rightly, the complaint was dismissed. So, he submitted to affirm the order of the learned District Forum.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. The complaint petition is accompanied with the users manual. On perusal of the same, it appears that the warranty was not applied if the air conditioner is not purchased from the authorized dealer of the Company. Since no document is filed showing purchase of the air conditioner from the authorized dealer of LIored as per the warranty condition, the dispute does not arise. Apart from this, the job card shows that the complainant did not allow the repair of the air conditioner. When no document of purchase was filed from the authorized dealer and the service or change of the air conditioner through are available in spite of the complainant’s allegation, it must be held that complainant has failed to prove the case by adducing necessary documents. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has passed order after due application of judicial mind. Hence, it is affirmed.
10. The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
