Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/272/2011

Kamal Kant S/o Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Geeta Electronis - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Kamboj

22 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.272 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 29.03.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 22.06.2016.

Kamal Kant aged about 27 years son of Shri Suresh Kumar resident of village Alahar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. Geeta Electronics, 69- 76, Shivaji Market, Shivaji Chowk, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor.    

2. Videocon Industries Ltd. 14^th KMS Stone Aurangabad, Paithan Road, Chitagaon, TQ Paithan, District Aurangabad through its Managing Director. 

 

                                                                                                                                                         …Respondents.

                       

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

             SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.           

 

Present: Sh. V.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Gaurav Mehta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1. 

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.     

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Kamal Kant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the Air Conditioner (hereinafter referred as A.C.) bearing model No. ACBKW51CE1-TAA or refund the price of the A.C. in question and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant purchased two Air Conditioners  from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 for a sum of Rs. 33600/- i.e. Rs. 16800/- as cost of one A.C. vide bill dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure C-1). The A.C. in question sold by Op No.1 were having warranty of one year (Warranty card Annexure C-2). In the last week of June, 2010, one A.C. bearing Model No. ACBKW51CE-1-TAA stopped working properly. The complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 immediately but OP No.1 did not provide any service and after some time summer season came to an end. Again on 07.02.2011, the complainant made a telephone call to the service help line of the Ops for getting the service of the Air Conditioners and lodged the complaint bearing No. 0702110147. The official of the OPs visited the house of the complainant on 08.02.2011 for getting service of the Air Conditioners and then they stated that cooling system and blower of the A.C. bearing Model No. ACBKW51CE1-TAA did not work properly and assured the complainant that they will replace the same. Thereafter, the complainant made so many complaints but till today the OPs failed to remove the defects. So, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement and stated that entire facts of the complaint are totally wrong and manipulated one. If the complainant was having any problem with regard to the A.C. in question, then he himself noted down the complaint with the Videocon service Centre and the official of the service centre was duty bound to repair the said A.C. OP No.1 being a dealer has no concerned whatsoever in this regard. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has no cause of action; Videocon company is a renowned company in electronic products and technicalities used by the company in manufacturing the world class electronics products is highly sophisticated and on merit all the contents of the complaint were denied being incorrect, company has provided the facility of toll free number for the complaints of its customer but the complainant has not lodged any complaint. It has been further stated that service engineer of the Op No.2 never assured the complainant that they will replace the defective parts in a week as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, the service engineers got the service done and the air conditioner was working perfectly. The official of OP No.2/ Service Engineers never refused to rectify the defects, if any, so, there is no negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many last opportunities with costs and the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 14.10.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint complainant filed photo copy of bill dated 31.03.2010 as Annexure C-1 and Photo copy of warranty card as Annexure C-2 in support of his complaint.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs also failed to file any evidence, despite so many last opportunities with cost, so, the evidence of the OPs was also closed vide order dated 18.04.2016.

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. 

 7.                    The only version of the complainant is that during the currency of warranty period of one year 1 Air Conditioner sold by OPs and manufactured by Op No.2 stopped working and the blower of the aforesaid A.C. was also stopped working properly and the OPs failed to rectify the problems despite so many complaints, so, there is a deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops hotly argued at length that a false complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate the OPs just two days prior to expiry of warranty period, as the complainant purchased the A.C. in question on 31.03.2010 and the present complaint has been filed on 29.03.2011. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that service engineer of the OP No.2 checked the Air Conditioner of the complainant and found the same in perfect working condition. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that no such complaint has been lodged by the complainant as alleged in the complaint by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased 2 A.C. amounting to Rs. 16800/- each vide bill dated 31.03.2010 from Op No.1 manufactured by OP No.2, which is evident from the photo copy of bill Annexure C-1. It is also not disputed that A.C. in question was having one year warranty which is evident from the terms and conditions of the warranty (Annexure C-2). From the perusal of photo copy of bill Annexure C-1, it is evident that complainant purchased the A.C. in question on 31.03.2010 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 29.03.2011 i.e. just 2 days before the expiry of warranty of one year. Moreover, the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to prove that A.C. in question was having any manufacturing defect or was not working properly. Mere filing of the bill and photo copy of warranty card it cannot be presumed that A.C. in question was defective and required its replacement. Even, the complainant has not filed any copy of complaint lodged with the service centre at Yamuna Nagar and has also not impleaded the service centre in the present complaint. Further the complainant has not tendered any mechanic/expert report to prove that the A.C. in question was having any defect. Even, the complainant failed to file his own affidavit in support of his complaint. It is settled law that if a customer alleged any defect in the product then burden lies upon the complainant himself to prove the same by filing cogent evidence or by moving an application under section 13(1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act but in the present complaint no such application has been filed by the complainant to prove that the A.C. in question was having any manufacturing defect during the currency of warranty period.

10                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case, hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

11                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.22.06.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.