FBEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

     DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020    

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.653/2019

PRESENT:                                                          

Sri.K.S.Bilagi, B.com, M.A., LL.M.….   PRESIDENT

Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.….     MEMBER

Sri. M.B. Seena, B.A., (Law), LL.B.      ….        MEMBER

Praveen S.Hali,

Aged about 43 years,

No.78, LIC Jeevan Griha,

J.P.Nagar 1^st Phase,

Inperson.

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. IFB Royal Services,
9.  

Hebbal Kempapura,

Bengaluru, Karnataka-560024.

2. IFB Industries Limited,

Home Appliances Division,

L1, Verna Electronic City, Verna,

Salcete, GOA,

(Opposite Party No.1 Ex-parte.

Opposite Party No.2 Rep by Sri.Vinod Kumar B.N., Adv)   

WRITTEN BY SRI K.S.BILAGI., PRESIDENT

******

//ORDERS ON MERIT//

1. The complaint has been filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties seeking refund of AMC contract amount of Rs.3,200/- with interest and compensation of Rs.48,000/-

2. The case of the Complainant in brief is as under:

The Complainant has taken Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) No.101615426 for his IFB Washing Machine.He moved to the rented house located in Srinivasa Garden, Bagaluru Main, Satanur Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru.He registered complaint with IFB Customer Care on 24.03.2017 and Engineer visited place of the Complainant and informed that two suspensions need to be replaced.He took AMC by paying Rs.3,200/-, but he lost the contract paper while relocating to JP Nagar.Inspite of his complaint, on 08.05.2017, 17.05.2017 and 30.05.2017, the Opposite Parties failed to attend the Annual Maintenance work.Later on, he raised the complaint on 07.06.2017 which was assigned to Sri.Ram Agency Engineer, who visited and told that there is no problem with suspension and machine just required only an adjustment of leveling legs to stabilize the machine on the floor.He got washed his cloths in the washing machine.Hence, this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party No.2 alone appeared, but failed to file version.  The Opposite Party No.1 failed to appear before this Commission, despite service of notice, Opposite Party No.1 has been placed ex-parte.  The Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on 2 documents.  Heard the argument of Complainant only.  No argument has been advanced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.  Perused the records.   

4. The points that arise for our determination are;

1. Whether the Complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service, negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs claimed in the complaint ?

3. What order? 

5. Our findings on the above points are:-

1.  POINT NO.1 & 2: Negative

 ii. POINT NO.3: As per the final order for

                         the following;

6. POINT NO.1 & 2:-  The Complainant had reiterated the facts stated in the complaint, eventhough the Complainant stated that he took AMC for his washing machine by paying Rs.2,300/-, but his own document EX.P1 indicates that the Complainant took AMC on 24.03.2017 by paying Rs.3,200/-.  EX.P2 indicates that the Washing Machine of the Complainant was put under service by paying Rs.575/- on 24.03.2017.  Eventhough the Complainant asserts that he lodged complaint on 08.05.2017, 17.05.2017 30.05.2017 and 07.06.2017, but he has not produced any copy of this complaint. According to the Complainant and his affidavit evidence, when he lodged a complaint on 07.06.2017 official of Sri.Ram Agency did attend the problem and he washed the cloth offer repair.  It means that the problem set out by the Complainant has been solved dt.07.06.2017.  Immediately, after receipt of complaint of the Complainant dt.07.06.2017, the problem in the washing machine of the Complainant has been solved.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  It is pertinent to note that this complaint came to be filed on 16^th April 2019 after expiry of annual maintenance on 22.03.2018.   It is not the case of the Complainant that after 07.06.2017 he called upon the Opposite Parties to look after annual maintenance of the washing machine till 22.03.2018.
7. It is relevant to note that along with complaint, the Complainant has filed email correspondences between 18^th February 2019 to 16^th April 2019.  These email correspondences clearly indicate that there was no record with the Opposite Parties about the Complainant having filed a complaint and registered number of the Complainant.  The Complainant has utterly failed to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  When the Annual Maintenance was expired on 22.03.2018 and when there is no problem with washing machine after 22.03.2018, the Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs. 

8. POINT NO.3:- Having regard to the discussion made in the proceeding paragraphs, the complaint requires to be dismissed.  We proceed to pass the following:

-:ORDER:-

        The complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by the open Forum on 26^th day of November 2020)                                            

• M.B. Seena )      (L.Mamatha)          (K.S.Bilagi)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

1. Praveen S.Halli, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Copy of Invoice cum receipt bearing No.029965 dt.24.03.2017 issued by the Opposite Party.
2. Copy of invoice cum receipt bearing No.029966 dt.24.03.2017.

Witness examined for the Opposite Party side:                   

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

• M.B. Seena )      (L.Mamatha)          (K.S.Bilagi)    
•