Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.01.2017
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to replace the main PCB & Transformer with new hand under the same model.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,500/- ( Rs. Five Thousand Five Hundred only ) as litigation costs.
- Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant has purchased one Eletrolux 1 ton Split A.C. from M/s Opera after payment of Rs. 17,501/- on 22.05.2006 and the said A.C. was properly working till may 2011. The complainant has further asserted that later on A.C. developed trouble and thereafter the complainant lodged complaint in customer care several times but the opposite parties neither attended the complaint nor replaced the same. On 09.05.2012 one of the company service engineer came to the house of complainant for attending the complaint lodged by complainant after may 2011 and during the inspection it was found that main PCB and transformer were dead. The aforesaid engineer assured that the main PCB and transformer will be repaired within 15 days but after laps of four months he has not taken any steps in this regard.
It is further case of the complainant that due to non functioning of A.C. she has suffered skin problem and as such treated under the treatment of Dr. Modi and thereafter the complainant purchased another A.C.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed ststaing therein that the complainant has purchased the A.C. on 22.05.2006 with one year warranty on compressor only thus the warranty ended on 21.05.2011.
It has been further asserted that the complainant has not registered any complaint either to the company or to authorised service centre within the period of warranty. It has been asserted that there is no deficiency on the service on behalf of opposite parties.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
No rejoinder has been filed to the written statement filed by the opposite parties.
It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the A.C. on 22.05.2006 and the aforesaid A.C. continued work properly till may 2011.
From bare perusal of Para – 3 and annexure – 3 of complaint petition the first complaint was lodged by the complainant on 30.05.2011. The opposite parties have asserted that on the aforesaid A.C. the company had given one year warranty fully + four years warranty on compressor only. If we calculate the four years from 22.05.2006 the four years ends on 21.05.2010 however the opposite parties have stated that the warranty has ended on 21.05.2011.
From perusal of annexure – 3 and Para – 3 it is crystal clear that the complainant has firstly made complaint to the customer care on 30.05.2011 while as per the opposite parties the warranty on compressor ended on 21.05.2011. Thus the first complaint of the complainant was made to the opposite parties on 30.05.2011 i.e. after expiry of warranty even on compressor. There is no averment of the complainant that compressor became out of order.
In view of the facts stated above it is crystal clear that at the time the complainant A.C. become non – functionalit was beyond the warranty period.
It is needless to say that beyond warranty period, if any apparatus developed some trouble then the purchaser has to bear the entire cost of repair as the company has no liability in such case.
For the reason stated above this complaint has no merit and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without costs.
Member President
