MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

03.10.2024

1.       A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant purchased four sharp S.AC worth Rs. 1,38,000/- manufactured by OP1 from OP2 vide invoice dated 19.10.2015 having Sr. No. 150316735,150316226, 150316685, 150316725. It is alleged by the complainant that after purchasing the ACs in question OP1 & 2 never provided any free service within one year or after periodical interval. It is further alleged by the complainant that all the four ACs were not working properly and were having the problem such as low cooling, no cooling, problem in compressor, leakage from indoor AC unit.

2.       On 20.04.2017,complainant registered the complaint of non functioning of the ACs in question vide complaint no. 2408232 for getting it repair but despite repeat complaint and follow up neither the executive of OP1 nor the service engineer approached the complainant to rectify/repair the units. Being summer season complainant was compelled to purchase another AC of Rs. 50,000/- for his uses. It is alleged by the complainant that he served legal notice dated 22.06.2017 to the OP1 & 2 thereby calling them to replace the AC in question and also pay the damages in respect to the same. Notice was duly received by OP1 & 2 despite that no steps were taken by the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant. Being aggrieved by the conduct of OP1 & 2 complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

3.       Notice of the complaint was sent to both OP1 & 2. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of OP1 & 2 wherein it is stated that the OP provided the satisfactory services on the complaint no. 2408232 lodged by the complainant. The ACs in question was suffering from gas leakage and cooling problem which was duly rectified/repaired by the officials of the OP on 11.08.2017, hence, once the satisfactory services was given to the complainant no cause of action for filing the present complaint arose against the OP and in favor of complainant. Even after carrying out the necessary repairing work and replacing the compressor as well as changing of the gas the complainant has not paid single penny to the OP.  It is further requested that the present complaint is nothing but the abuse of the process of the law, hence, dismissed with cost.

4.       Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs filed wherein the averments made in the written statement were simply denied. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

5.       Sh. Rakesh Verma AR of OPs filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OPs. Despite opportunity neither the complainant nor the OPs filed written arguments. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Saurabh. Despite opportunity no one came forward to address the arguments on behalf of OP1 & 2.

6.       Complainant has placed on record the copy of the invoice as well as the legal notice in support of his contention.

7.       The complainant has placed on record the copy of the invoice in respect to the purchase of four ACs in question on 19.10.2015. We have perused the invoice and found that the invoice does not contain any provision in respect to the warranty of the ACs in question. Moreover, as per the parties the complainant registered complaint against the defective ACs with OP vide complaint no. 2408232 and the complaint was redressed by OPs on 11.08.2017 by replacing the compressor and changing of the gas. To substantiate its contention OP counsel has placed on record the copy of the job sheet dated 11.08.2017 which clearly speaks that the necessary repairing work were carried out by the OP and  the complainant refused to pay the gas refilling charges to the OP, whereas the complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to rebut the contention of OP1 and 2.

8.       The complainant has alleged in his complaint that due to non functioning of the AC he was compelled to purchase new two ACs for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- but failed to place on record any documentary evidence in respect to the same. Moreover, the OP1 & 2 repaired the ACs in question on 11.08.2017 and thereafter no complaint was lodged by the complainant with the OPs in respect to the non functioning of the same. The complainant has filed the present complaint with this Commission on 15.09.2017 and has not placed on record the documentary evidence in respect to non – functioning of the ACs in question.

9.       In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service against OP due to lack of documentary evidence.  We therefore find no merits in the present complaint , same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.

File be consigned to record room.

 10.    Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on.

Announced in open Commission on   03.10.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR)              (NIPUR CHANDNA)                      (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                              MEMBER