Complainant Kuku Mahajan has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.35,500/- as cost of A.C., Rs.4600/- as maintenance charges etc., alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- as damages caused to the entire family specially wife who attracted physical disorder of disease like Asthma etc. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses to him.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased IFB split AC one ton inverter for Rs.36,500/-. However, the dealer at that time of purchase of AC has given discount of Rs.1000/- and exact amount paid Rs.35,500/- vide invoice No.747 dated 4.5.2015 with full guarantee alongwith its free service upto 5 years was provided. He has further pleaded that from the purchase of A.C. it did not work properly rather it did no cooling at all. He informed the dealer about this and he sent him service centre. Technician who thoroughly examined and removed some technical problems but the A.C. did not cooling at all. No doubt his complaints were regularly been attended by the service providers but to no effect at all. This non functioning of A.C. was so many times brought to the knowledge of the dealer known as BHUSHAN ELECRONICS but all in vain. He informed the purchaser IFB point A.C. especially of inverter version is newly introduced by the company, so the technicians do not know how to handle it. This practice of technicians and his complaints went for limitless period. The dealer was finally asked to change the A.C. with new one though he agreed but practically he did nothing till date. The A.C. is not working at all. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice issued to the opposite party no.1 had not been received back. Case called several times, but none had come present on its behalf, therefore, opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.9.2018.
4. Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable for dismissal; complaint is time barred and the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has intentionally suppressed the material facts in the complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party no.2 is manufacturer of the said product preferred to be purchased by the complainant. The said product was not having any guarantee. The complainant is regularly utilizing the appliance from the date of its purchase and the same is giving cooling. The OP No.1 i.e. authorized sales point of the products manufactured by the OP no.1 is not rendering services to the customers rather the OP No.2 is rendering services to the customers after sale of the products. The authorized sales points/OP No.1 is not accepting the complaints rather are guiding the customers to lodge complaint on toll free number of OP No.2 in order to avail after sales services. The appliance is not suffering from the manufacturing defects and the complainant has not lodged purported complaint about the problem, if any, experienced in the appliance. The Opposite party no.1 is not dealer rather is a franchisee which is authorized to sell the products of the OP no.2.The OP No.1 has not sent his service provided centre. The complainant has leveled vague allegations about the removing of the defects, non-functioning of the A.C., agreeing of the dealer for the replacement of the A.C. etc. The OP No.2 received requests for providing service on 13.04.2017 and the same were promptly provided to the complainant against ticket number 1001313747 and 1000230070 respectively. The technician deputed by the OP No.2 visited to the house of the complainant and provided services. As usual filters were cleaned and washed with water. There was neither any problem in the product nor the same was pointed out by the complainant. The complainant has not placed on records copy of the complaint/job cards etc. to substantiate the allegations leveled in the complaint. In fact the present complaint is false and after utilizing the product for more than 3 years, the complaint has been filed before this Hon’ble District Forum. On 23.05.2017 the complainant availed Annual Maintenance Contract on payment of Rs.4600/- which expire on 22.5.2018. On 1.8.2017, the complaint lodged one request for which ticket No.1000289815 was generated and the said request was further swiftly attended. During the inspection it was found that the electricity supply wire was loose from stabilizer and the wire was tightened and appliance in proper working condition was demonstrated to the complainant. On 12.09.2017 another request was received for which ticket No.1000427979 was generated. The complainant raised cooling issue and the gas pressure was checked with pressure gauge. The back pressure was found as 80 PSIG. The working of the air-conditioner was checked for 30 minutes and the same was found working proper. Nothing was found in the A.C. The perusal of the above reveals that the complainant is utilizing the A.C. and the same is not suffering from the problems as are contended in the complaint. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Alongwith the complaint complainant has filed some un-exhibited documents.
6. On the other hand, alongwith the written reply opposite party no.2 has filed affidavit of Anil Kumar Johri, Executive Taxation of IFB Industries Limited alongwith documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/6.
7. We have heard the ld.counsels for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
8. On going through the file minutely, we have observed that complainant has placed invoice of the A.C. for an amount of Rs.35,500/- dated 4.5.2015. Another document dated 23.5.2017 which is an invoice cum receipt of the annual maintenance contract amounting to Rs.4600/- is placed on the file. These documents are un-exhibited. But we think and observe that these are the necessary and essential documents for proper adjudication of the present complaint. In the interest of justice, these documents be read as Mark ‘A and ‘B’ respectively.
9. On the other hand, OP2 placed on the file affidavit of Anil Kumar Johri alongwith documents OP-2/1 which is the AMC terms and conditions, Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6 are the service reports done by OP2 and on each document proper description of the work done is given. Nowhere any defect which is of the description of a manufacturing defect is described and no amount is charged from complainant as it was done first of all under warranty and then under AMC. As such no question of deficiency in service arises. The OPs have placed on record Job Sheets of each and every work done by them to the A.C. of complainant and this was the contention of counsel for OP that the onus to prove that there was any kind of manufacturing defect is on complainant. All other allegations were also categorically denied by the counsel for OP and lastly he prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
10. On taking into consideration the arguments put forth by both the counsels and documents placed on file, we are also of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint as he has neither produced any Job Sheet proving the defects in the Air Conditioner nor he has placed any expert opinion from which he got checked his defective A.C., to prove any kind of manufacturing defect. On the other hand, OP has been successful in denying the allegations by producing the documents OP2/1 to OP2/6. Otherwise also, if we go through the file we have observed that complainant has used the A.C. for almost three years. Had the A.C. been defected it would not had worked for such long period. As such from no angle complainant has been able to prove the allegations made in the complaint and as such he is not entitled for the relief claimed.
11. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
12. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.
Announced: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
July 16, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
