DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 462 of 7.12.2018

                                      Decided on:   3.9.2021

Harcharan Singh s/o S.Jagjit Singh R/o House No.15, Gurmat Enclave, Near Sullar Chowk, Patiala.                                                                 …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s KS Marketing namely Real Shopee, SCO 23, Leela Bhawan Market, OPP. ICICI Bank, Patiala through its Prop./partner
2. M/s Prasad NK, Shop No.6, Backside Down Town Market, inside Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala through its Prop./partner.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Jaswinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Complaint against OP No.1 has been withdrawn.

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for OP No.2.                                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased on R.O. system make Whirlpool New Puro Fresh Plus from Op No.1 vide receipt No.2407 dated 22.6.2013 for an amount of Rs.15,500/-It is averred that the complainant got the service of the said RO regularly and paid the services charges to authorized representative of OP No.1. It is averred the  complainant called OP No.1 for the service of RO who sent OP No.2 for the same and conducted the job work i.e. sediment flot, SV pump  and Rs.3840/-was paid as charges. It is further averred that after service RO was not working properly. The complainant made request to OPs. OP No.2 visited the house of complainant, who told that the equipments already provided in the RO are not working properly .He advised the complainant to get replace the same and demanded Rs.4000/- for that purpose. The complainant hired services of OPs and paid Rs.3840/- but the OPs again demanded Rs.4000/-from the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant requested to replace the equipments already installed by the OPs but to no effect. The complainant got sent legal notice to the OPs in this regard but all in vain.   There is thus mal practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving direction to the OPs to replace the equipments already installed by OPs while providing service or to refund Rs.3840/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum ; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation and Rs.5500/-as costs of litigation.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to OP No.2 who appeared and filed the written reply while vide separate statement dated 21.12.2018, the complainant withdrew the complaint against OP No.1
3. In the written reply filed by OP No.2 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complainant is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is false and frivolous and the complaint is also liable to be dismissed for not arrayed the manufacturer (Whirlpool) as necessary party.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has purchased RO system on 22.3.2013 for an amount of Rs.15500/-.It is admitted that the complainant approached the OP for the service of his R.O. and have charged Rs.3840/-against receipt No.2712 dated 9.9.2018 and after that never visited OP No.2.After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CW1/A affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Inderjit Yadav, Prop. and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that he purchased R.O. of Whirlpool company on 22.6.2013 for Rs.15500/-.The ld. counsel further argued that R.O. was defective and service was got conducted and Rs.3840/-was paid. The ld. counsel further argued that RO again became defective and OPs again demanded Rs.4000/- for replacement of parts.The ld. counsel further argued that as the RO is defective so the OPs be directed to replace the same and the complaint be allowed.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that RO was not under warranty and the defect was removed. The ld. counsel further argued that now there is no defect and the RO cannot be replaced after the complaint was filed after more than five years. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has already withdrawn the complaint against OP No.1 from whom he has purchased the RO and relief lies against OP No.1. So the complaint be dismissed.
10. To prove this case Harcharan Singh has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and he has deposed as per his complaint.Ex.C1 is receipt vide which RO was purchased from M/s K.S.Marketing, Leela Bhawan Market, Opposite ICICI Bank, Patiala on 22.6.2013 for Rs.15,500/-.There is no document on the file which can show that any warranty was given on this RO. Moreover, as the RO was purchased from OP No.1 and complaint against OP No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn , so the complainant cannot claim the charges from OP No.2.Vide receipt Ex.C2 dated 9.9.2018 RO was repaired and Rs.3840/- was charged. This amount was received by Prasad NK  from Mrs. Kavita and not from Harcharan Singh. So as the amount was received from Mrs.Kavita and not from Harcharan Singh, so the consumer qua OP No.2 was Kavita and not Harcharan Singh. It is also not mentioned that what relation Kavita was having with Harcharan Singh.
11. Now as per the complainant  there was again defect in the RO and Rs.4000/-was again demanded  by OP No.2 but all this facts have been vehemently denied by the OP No.2 and have stated that they have never demanded this amount from the complainant. So it is clear that RO which was purchased on 22.6.2013 , there was no warranty given on this RO and the complaint was filed on 7.12.2018 i.e. after more than five years. There was some defect as per the complainant and the defect was rectified by OP No.2.On the receipt the name of Harcharan Singh is not mentioned and only name of Kavita is mentioned although house number is same.
12. So as there was no warranty on this RO, so the same cannot be replaced. As such the complaint is dismissed without any costs.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:3.9.2021         

                                    Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                                    President