Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.09.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 725/- ( vide receipt no. 1854 dated 28.01.2011).
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased IFB Supremo washing machine on 01.01.1998 from M/s Sound of Music, Exhibition Road, Patna Vide annexure – 1 on the occasion of birthday of his daughter Tanya aged about 2 years. The aforesaid machine contained warranty of two years. The aforesaid warranty was renewed by the complainant on 28.12.2006 after paying Rs. 3,592/- vide cheque. The aforesaid annual maintenance contract was to be expired on 24.12.2010 because the same was renewed on 10.12.2008.
It is further case of the complainant that on 13.12.2010 he deposited his machine in service center i.e. M/s Sri Ganesh, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna for repairing the door of the aforesaid machine in which there was defect. As the door was not available in the service center at the relevant time, the complainant was requested to wait for some time and on 28.01.2011 his whole door was replaced after paying Rs. 725/-. The complainant protested as the period of Annual maintenance contract was not expired but the service center was rigid and hence he had paid the same.
It is further case of the complainant that after that there was further defect in the machine which was got repaired by the complainant after paying Rs. 276/-. After some time there was defect in the machine due to which his wife was compelled to wash the cloths due to which his wife became sick and lastly the complainant was compelled to purchase a new machine Godrej REO 5511 ( washing machine) from M/s Smriti, Arah after paying Rs. 30,000/- due to which the complainant was put to severe harassment and loss.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed. In this written statement in Para – 5 it has been stated that the complainant got Annual maintenance contract renewed on 10.12.2008 which was effective from 25.12.2008 to 24.12.2010 only for two years and accordingly the terms and conditions was provided vide Annual maintenance contract no. 215 dated 10.12.2008. It has been further asserted that as per clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the Annual maintenance contract of IFB, defects due to negligence / misuse / alteration/ accidents / substitution of original components and act of god are not covered.
It is further alleged that alleged defect of door of supremo washing machine was defect due to negligence on the part of complainant and this fact was conveyed to the complainant and after being satisfied the complainant entered into an agreement.
It has been further asserted that door of the supremo washing machine was changed as per request of the complainant and the complainant has deliberately suppressed this fact.
No any rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the complainant of the aforementioned written statement filed by opposite party no. 1. Opposite party no. 1 has also filed written argument repeating the same fact.
Heard the learned counsel for the opposite party.
It appears from the complaint petition as well as written statement of the opposite party no. 1 that after renewal of Annual maintenance contract, the period of renewed Annual maintenance contract was for 10.12.2008 to 24.12.2010 and on 13.12.2010 the complainant has complaint this fact and after availability of door it was changed after paying Rs. 725/-.
The complainant has stated that on 10.02.2011 his machine became out of order and hence he got the machine repaired after paying Rs. 276/-.
It is needless to say that the period of Annual maintenance contract renewal was for 10.12.2008 to 24.12.2010 during which the door of the machine was changed after paying Rs. 725/-. The complainant again got the machine repaired after 10.02.2011 which was after expiry of warranty period of Annual maintenance contract.
The opposite party has stated that the entire door was changed on the request of the complainant for which he had paid Rs. 725/-. This fact has not been denied by the complainant by filing rejoinder.
The complainant has not disclosed about the type of defects occurred in the machine during the different period after change of entire door of the machine.
In view of the fact stated above we are left with no option but to accept the fact mentioned in written statement of opposite party and as such we find and hold that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1.
For the discussion made above this complaint petition stands dismissed.
Member President
