| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 436 of 2013 Date of Institution: 17-06-2013 Date of Decision: 17-8-2015 Lovepreet son of S.Baldev Singh, V.P.O: Dasowal, District Tarn Taran, now resident of Kot Atma Ram, Near Pathran Wala Park, Gali No.5, H.No. 111, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - LG Electronics India Private Limited, B.O: Kennedy Avenue, Opp.Mohan International Hotel, Amritsar, through its Branch Manager/ Principal Manager.
- LG Service Centre, Near Goel Masjid, Sharifpura, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Raman Randev, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Exparte. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Lovepreet under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant purchased Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1. On 12.6.2012 the complainant got one year AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) for the period from 12.6.2012 to 12.6.2013 for which, the complainant paid Rs.2247/-. Complainant alleges that during the AMC period, said Air Conditioner stopped working. Complainant filed a complaint regarding break down of the said Air Conditioner with Opposite Party No.2 having Job Card No.RNA 130313089875 dated 13.3.2013 who sent their mechanic to the residence of the complainant. The mechanic affected the necessary repair to the Air Conditioner and assured that there will be no problem in the Air Conditioner in future. In the month of June 2013, same problem again developed in the Air Conditioner in question and it stopped working. The complainant again registered a complaint during the AMC period vide job card No.RNA No. 1306611020017 dated 11.6.2013 with Opposite Party No.2 who sent their mechanic to the residence of the complainant, but was unable to rectify the problem. He removed the unit and took it to the service centre of Opposite Party No.2. In the summer season, it is difficult to live without Air Conditioner. The complainant again approached Opposite Parties service centre to know the position of the Air Conditioner in question, but the complainant was shocked when the Incharge of the Opposite Party No.2 refused to rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner in question and demanded Rs.5000/- from the complainant whereas defect developed in the Air Conditioner during AMC period and the Opposite Party No.2 is duty bound to repair the Air Conditioner without any charges from the complainant. The Air Conditioner in question is still lying with Opposite Party No.2. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to repair the Air Conditioner in question under the contract without any charges or to refund the amount of Rs.2247/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of contract. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has not pleaded and not even annexed with the complaint the proof of purchase of the alleged Air Conditioner. There is no mentioning of day, date and year of the purchase of the said Air Conditioner, but only pleaded that the complainant had got AMC from Opposite Party. There is no record with the Opposite Parties regarding the factum of purchase of the said Air Conditioner by the complainant, so the question of AMC does not arise at all. Moreover, as per the pleadings of the complainant that it is purchased from Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 does not sell the products directly to the customers. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jatinderpal Singh Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith document Ex.OP1,2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased LG Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1 and he got AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) of the said Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1 vide contract Note No.MC-025244 for the period from 12.6.2012 to 12.6.2013 on payment of Rs.2247/-. Complainant submitted that said Air Conditioner stopped working during AMC period. The complainant filed complaint with Opposite Party No.2 vide Job Card No.RNA 130313089875 dated 13.3.2013 Ex.C3 who sent their mechanic to the residence of the complainant. Said mechanic affected the necessary repair to the Air Conditioner. In the month of June, 2013 same problem again developed in the Air Conditioner in question and it stopped working. The complainant again got registered complainant vide job card No.RNA No. 1306611020017 dated 11.6.2013 with Opposite Party No.2 who again sent their mechanic to the residence of the complainant, but this time, said mechanic was unable to rectify the problem. He removed the unit and took it to the service centre of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e. service centre to know the position of the Air Conditioner in question, but the Incharge of the Opposite Party No.2- Service Centre refused to rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner in question and demanded Rs.5000/- despite the fact the defect developed in the Air Conditioner during AMC period, so Opposite Party No.2 was duty bound to repair the Air Conditioner in question without any charges from the complainant. Said Air Conditioner of the complainant is still lying with the Opposite Party No.2. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant has alleged that he purchased the product i.e. LG Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 does not sell the product directly to the customer. AMC is provided only to first purchaser of the product as per warranty conditions. Opposite Parties denied that any AMC is entered into between the complainant and Opposite Parties. Complainant has concocted this story of AMC. Opposite Parties have vehemently stated that no AMC is entered into between the complainant and the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties have also denied that mechanic of the Opposite Party No.2 took Air Conditioner of the complainant to the service centre of Opposite Party No.2. They also denied that any such Air Conditioner is lying with Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Parties submitted that complaint lodged by the complainant is totally false and frivolous and needs dismissal with punitive damages.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant submitted that he purchased Air Conditioner in question from Opposite Party No.1, but the complainant could not produce any document regarding the purchase of the Air Conditioner in question from Opposite Party No.1. Moreover, Opposite Party No.1 is the Branch Office of company LG Electronics India Private Limited, situated at Kennedy Avenue, Opp.Mohan International Hotel, Amritsar and is not dealer or retailer. Moreover, the complainant has not mentioned the date, month or year of purchase of the Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1 nor the complainant could produce any invoice/ bill or any mode of purchase of the Air Conditioner so that it could be determined as to who purchased the Air Conditioner in question, because Opposite Party No.1 has categorically alleged that AMC / Warranty is confined to the first purchaser of the Air Conditioner only & is non transferable. These facts were required to be proved by the complainant, particularly when the Opposite Parties in their written version as well as in their evidence had taken clear cut defence that the AMC purchased by the complainant Ex.C7 was not issued by the Opposite Party No.1. It is a forged and fabricated document. In this regard, Opposite Parties have produced on record the proforma of AMC being issued by Opposite Parties Ex.OP1,2/2 which has Logo of the Opposite Parties. AMC purchased by the complainant Ex.C7 does not bear any Logo. Moreover, there is cutting on the date of issuance of this AMC.
- Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that Opposite Party No.2 has given service to the complainant under this AMC vide job sheet dated 24.11.2012 Ex.C4, job sheet dated 11.6.2013 Ex.C5 and job sheet dated 13.3.2013. All these job sheets are not signed by any person from the side of the complainant as well as Opposite Parties. Moreover, name of the customer is also different on job sheet Ex.C5 as the name is written as Lafri Singh whereas on job sheet dated 13.3.2013, customer name is written as Love Preet Singh. Further on the job sheet Ex.C5, the date of purchase of the Air Conditioner is written as 12.6.2013 whereas on job sheet dated 13.3.2013, the date of purchase is written as 5.3.2011. On the other hand, on job sheet Ex.C4 date of purchase is written as 3.5.2007. All these dates regarding purchase of Air Conditioner are totally different from each other. The job sheets do not bear signatures of any person. Moreover, as per the terms & conditions, AMC/ Warranty is confined to the first purchaser of the Air Conditioner only & is non transferable and the Opposite Parties have categorically stated that the complainant never purchased the Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.1 are selling agent/ retailer nor the complainant has produced any invoice/ bill or any mode of purchase of Air Conditioner, so the complainant has also failed to prove on record that he purchased the Air Conditioner in question from Opposite Party No.1. AMC is highly doubtful and as such, can not be relied upon because of different dates of purchase mentioned by the complainant on job sheets Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case.
- Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 17-08-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
