Complainant Ravinder Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the cost of Cooler i.e. Rs.7800/- with 18% interest. OP be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by him alongwith  Rs.5,000/- as cost, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Kunstocom Cooler from OP No.2 on 17.8.2017 for a sum of Rs.7800/-. Thereafter, Cooler developed certain technical snag for which repeated complaints were made to the Ops. The Technical operator visited his home once a time for the repair of Cooler, but he demanded money for its repair and later on he never came to his house. The Ops made no efforts to rectify the said faults. On 03.07.2018, he called on Customer Care Toll Free number 1800 103 2070 of Kunstocom India Limited and lodged his complaint bearing complaint No.18070117. In spite of that the OPs did not send any service Engineer to rectify the faults. Due to the negligence of OP, he had suffered loss and injury due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony, for which he is entitled to compensation. The Cooler has a warranty for a period of one year.  The Ops are liable for breach of contract as it has not complied with the terms of guarantee and had been extremely negligent in attending the complaint of the complainant and is therefore liable to compensate him for the loss and injury caused to him.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3.            Notice issued to the OP No.1 had not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on behalf of OP No.1. Hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.12.2018.     

4.           OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply submitting therein that the complainant never approached OP No.2 after purchasing the Cooler in question, so the question of demanding any money from him does not arise at all. The complainant never informed OP No.2 regarding lodging of complaint by him to OP No.1. It was submitted that the OP No.2 is only dealer of OP No.1. The OP No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation etc. The complaint is without any cause of action. All other averments made in the complainant have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

5.      Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. 

6.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the opposite party No.2.

7.     The main contention of counsel for complainant was that the cooler developed some technical snag after its purchase and the same was reported on the customer care Number of opposite party no.1. Once a mechanic came from opposite party no.1 to resolve the problem but as he has demanded money from the complainant, the defect was not rectified.

8.      Counsel for opposite party no.2 argued that he is only the dealer of opposite party no.1 and has nothing to do with the defects developed in the cooler as such he is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of complaint against him.

9.    We have gone through the case file very minutely and also considered the arguments put forth by both the counsels. The fact about purchase of cooler is proved as Ex.C-1 on the file and the same is not disputed. Ex.C2 is the warranty card produced by the complainant wherein warranty terms and conditions are mentioned and it is clearly written that the appliances is warranted for one year against all manufacturing defects . Here in the present complaint, the complainant has not mentioned anywhere in his complaint that there is any manufacturing defect in the cooler. Complainant has also failed to prove any report or service Job Card of any authenticated technicians to prove that there was some manufacturing defect in the cooler. The complainant has mentioned one complaint number on which he registered its complaint. But no proof in the shape of printout is placed on the file. We cannot presume on our own that complainant must have made a complaint. In today’s fast and techno-friendly age, the complaint was needed to be produced on the file.

10.       To avail any remedy under The Consumer Protection Act 1986, the burden to prove the alleged allegations is first of all on the complainant. Here in the present complaint, the complainant has been unable to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the said cooler by producing any effective and cogent evidence. In the absence of such proof this Forum itself cannot presume that there was some manufacturing defect in the said cooler.

11.      From above discussion, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove his complaint and as such he is not entitled for the claimed relief and compensation. In view of it, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.         Copy of the orders be issued to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record. Announced in open Forum. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                    (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

December 02, 2019.                     Member                         Presiding Member

 MK