Haryana

Rohtak

CC/19/374

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahadev Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Y.S. Dalal

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rohtak.
Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/19/374
( Date of Filing : 05 Aug 2019 )
 
1. Sunil Kumar
S/o Jay Kumar R/o Village Kansala District Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Mahadev Enterprises
Gohana Road near Govt. High School, Rohtak through its Proprietor Vijaypal.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Nagender Singh Kadian PRESIDENT
  Mrs. Tripti Pannu MEMBER
  Sh. Vijender Singh MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 09 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                                    Complaint No. : 374.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 05.08.2019

                                                                    Decided on       : 09.06.2023

 

Sunil Kumar son of Jay Kumar resident of village Kansala District Rohtak.

                                                                                    ……….………..Complainant. 

                                                  Vs.

Mahadev Enterprises, Gohana road near Govt. high School, Rohtak through its Proprietor Vijaypal.

..…….……….Opposite party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Sh.Yashvir Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant.

                   None for opposite party.

                                     

                                                ORDER

 

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased  two fix speed ACs for Rs.67400/- vide bill dated 15.04.2019 from the opposite party. But after one month of the purchase of the said ACs, it was found that both the ACs were not working properly and not giving cooling. The complainant told the above said problems to the opposite party and opposite party assured that the defect would be removed at the earliest but without any fruitful result. Being no response from the respondent, complainant got repaired the alleged A.Cs from R.K.Enterprises, Sampla Road, Kharkhoda District Sonipat on 02.06.2019 for Rs.5400/-. Complainant showed the alleged bill of repair to the opposite party and requested to pay the alleged charges of Rs.5400/- but to no effect. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the repair charges of Rs.5400/- alongwith interest and also to pay an amount of Rs.25000/- on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant. 

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply and submitted that answering respondent has supplied a good quality A.C. to the complainant. The answering opposite party is simply a seller of the A.Cs and in case of any defect in the A.C., it is the duty of the service centre to repair the same. The answering respondent has never given any assurance to the complainant regarding replacement or repair or A.Cs. Rather it was told to the complainant that in  case of any defect in the A.C., it is the duty of the service centre to repair the same. The complainant got repaired the A.C. from private mechanic and as per terms and conditions now the said A.Cs have become out of warranty. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.   

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and thereafter failed to conclude its evidence and as such evidence of complainant was closed vide order dated 21.07.2022 of this Commission. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and closed his evidence on 19.05.2022.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                Perusal of the documents reveals that as per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the     A.Cs on 15.04.2019 from the opposite party and as per bill Ex. C2, complainant got the service of his A.Cs from the R.K.Enterprises. But to prove the defects in the A.Cs, complainant has not placed on record any document. Neither any complaint made through telephone, email or in writing has been placed on record by the complainant nor any job sheet issued by the authorized service centre of the company has been placed on record by the complainant. As per the averments made in the complaint also, only verbal complaint has been made to the opposite party. No complaint number has been mentioned in the complaint. Merely a repair bill issued by the private mechanic has been placed on record by the complainant, from which it is not proved that there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Moreover, manufacturer has not been impleaded as necessary party in the present complaint. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

09.06.2023

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                         

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                     

                                                                        …………………………..

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Nagender Singh Kadian]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Mrs. Tripti Pannu]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Sh. Vijender Singh]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.