BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.47/11.

Date of instt.: 17.02.2011. 

                                                 Date of Decision: .2015.

Pankaj Gupta son of Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta, resident of Sector-19, HUDA, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Modern Electronics Park Road, Kaithal, through its proprietor.

2. Videocon Service Centre, Opp. Jat School, Ashoka Garden Colony Kaithal through its Authorized Signatory Anil Saini.

3. Videocon Industries Ltd., Ist Floor, Auto Car Compound Adalat Road, Aurangabad-431005, Maharashtra, Phone No.0240-2471201. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. K.S.Dhull, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Pawan Midha, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for Ops No.2 & 3. 

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased freeze on 25.06.2007 for a sum of Rs.13,500/- from Op No.1 against the warranty of six years.  It is alleged that the said freeze is not functioning for a long period due to some mechanical defect and the above-said freeze did not give proper cooling and the same was brought to notice of Op No.1 but the Op No.2 did not rectify the defects from the above-said freeze.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant never visited on the shop of the answering Op; that no date and month of visit has been mentioned that when he approached the answering Op; that the Op No.1 is not liable for any defect arisen in the product sold as the authorized service-centre of the company is liable to repair the mechanical defect related to the product.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     Ops No.2 & 3 filed the joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the answering Op is a well known company and has its reputation in the market.  Single time, number of products have been manufactured in the company and if any manufacturing defect is come out that will be found in all the units not only in the one, but the answering Ops did not receive any complaint in this regard from the complainant; that the complaint is bad for non-compliance of Section 1391)(c) of the Act, which is mandatory provision.   

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. .2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.