BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 144/2017  Filed on 04/04/2017

ORDER DATED: 16/01/2023

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed written versions denying allegation raised by the complainant. 
2. The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a LG Inverter AC from the 2^nd opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.40,100/-.  According to the complainant from the date of purchase of AC, the same had some defects including cooling problem.  Immediately the said problem was brought to the notice of the opposite party and accordingly a technician of the opposite party visited the residence of the complainant and after inspecting the AC, the technician informed that this problem will be automatically solved within two days.  This was repeated several occasions finally on 18/03/2017 the AC was completely put off and could not be used for that day.  The complainant’s main grievance is that after purchasing a brand new product by paying more than Rs.40,000/-, he could not use the same without any complaint till the date of filing this complaint.  According to the complainant the product is having some manufacturing defect and hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  The opposite parties filed written version admitting the fact of purchase of the product from the showroom of 2^nd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party being the service center has properly attended all service calls promptly and the complainant was satisfied within service rendered by the 3^rd opposite party.  According to the opposite party 1 & 3 there is no merit in this complaint and liable to be dismissed.  The 2^nd opposite party also filed a version stating that the 2^nd opposite party has sold a brand new product without any defect and hence if there is any complaints the same has to be dealt with by the manufacturer and in this case the manufacturer through their authorized service center provided all the possible services to the complainant and the complainant was satisfied with those services.  As the allegations of the complainant is with regard to the manufacturing defect of the product the 2^nd opposite party who is only a dealer of the product is not a concerned part to rectify the same and hence the 2^nd opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and opposite parties 1&3.  No documents were seen marked from either side. 
4. Issues to be considered:

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the       

part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to cost?

5. Heard.  Perused affidavit and records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1.  No documents were seen marked from the side of the complainant, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities for the same.  The complainant filed affidavit on 21/12/2017.  Subsequent to that till 26/06/2018 the complainant was absent and not marked any documents and hence the complainant’s evidence was closed on 26/06/2018.  On verification of the records, it is seen that since 06/03/2018 to 17/11/2022, the complainant is continuously absent.  As the complainant failed to mark any documents to substantiate the case of the complainant, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish the case put forward by the complainant against the opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 & 3 also filed affidavit denying the allegation raised by the complainant.  As the complainant failed to prove his case, we find that there is no merit in this complaint.  In view of the above discussion, we find that the complainant failed to prove his case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  There will be no order as to cost.          

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 16^th day of January,  2023.

C.C. No. 144/2017

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT