This case is coming for final hearing on 08-07-2014 in the presence of Sri D.Dakshina Murthy & Sri A.Srinivas, Advocates for the Complainant and Opposite Parties called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                            

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainant is that he purchased Ultrafresh Kitchen Environment Processor from the 1^st opposite party who is franchise of 2^nd opposite party in the month of November 2008 under Invoice No.388 dated 13.11.2008.  After installation of the processor the 1^st opposite party had impressed upon complainant that if an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) is given to 1^st opposite party they will be looking after the entire maintenance of the processor and if it is necessary the parts will be replaced by the opposite party.  By inducing the opposite party’s version, the complainant entered into annual maintenance service contract with the opposite parties on 04.07.2011 under Contract No.1138 and according to that contract the service to the processor should be done bi-monthly during the year of contract which is starting from July 2011 and ending on May 2012. The complainant stated that right from the beginning of the AMC, the opposite parties’ service was not at all satisfactory and they are attending only after repeated phone calls. From October, 2011 the Processor started giving all sorts of troubles but the persons of the opposite parties were not attending to those complaints properly. As and when the service persons are coming, the ladies in the house of complainant used to inform them about the problems and the opposite parties used to do some work and obtain signatures of the ladies but the problems continued to persist.  From February, 2012, the Processor completely stopped functioning and after numerous phone calls, the opposite parties personnel has come in the month of March 2012 and stated that some spares parts to be replaced and he will be attending on the same at the earliest, but there was no services by the opposite parties as mentioned even after several phone calls made by the complainant.  As per the contract the date of last servicing is in the month of May 2012, but nobody has turned up to attend the work. 

2.       The complainant stated that he spent huge amount to install the processor and he expect proper service from the opposite parties, but no service is given by them.  Hence, the complainant issued a registered lawyer’s notice on 02.07.2012 to replace the processor with new one and both the opposite parties received the notice but failed to comply the same. 

3.       These acts of the opposite parties clearly show deficiency in service on their part and also causing mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a)      to replace the new Ultrafresh Kitchen Environment Processor, failing which to pay Rs.10,450/- with 18% p.a. interest.

b)      to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages besides costs of Rs.5,000/-

4.       On the otherhand, the opposite parties called absent and set exparte even after receipt of notices which were issued by the Forum. 

5.       At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A5.  The complainant also filed written arguments.  On representation made by the complainant treated it heard. 

6.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

7.       As per Ex.A1 i.e., invoice issued by the opposite parties on 13.11.2008 shows that the complainant purchased a product and the description mentioned in that Exhibit K.V.H & K.E.P. for an amount of Rs.10,450/-.  Ex.A2 is the Instruction Manual with Warranty Card wherein it mentioned that “the warranty is only for a period of 365 days and under no circumstances can be increased”.  After that the complainant entered into Annual Maintenance Contract with the opposite parties on 04.07.2011 i.e., Ex.A3 and paid an amount of Rs.750/- towards Annual Maintenance Contract and Ex.A3 signed by A.Varalakshmi on behalf of the complainant.  The version of the complainant as per the complaint is that right from the beginning of the AMC, the service was not at all satisfactory and when the processor was completely functioning in the month of February, 2012, the opposite parties visited his house at March, 2012 and stated that some parts are to be replaced and even after expiry of AMC the opposites not attended to rectify the problem.  Then, the complainant issued a registered Lawyer’s notice i.e., Ex.A4 on 02.07.2012 and the same were acknowledged by the opposite parties those are Ex.A5. 

8.       After carefully analysation of the facts of the complaint with related documents, the Forum is of the view that the complainant nearly after three years of the purchase of Ultrafresh Kitchen Environment Processor he entered AMC with the opposite parties and the complainant alleged that right from the beginning of the AMC, the service was not satisfactory, but no notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding their attendance to do service or to  rectify the defects in the said processor.  The complainant kept quite nearly one year even after the opposite parties‘absent to attend the service for maintenance of the processor.  As per Ex.A3 Annual Maintenance Contract it was only for 12 months i.e., from July 2011 to May 2012 and moreover, the complainant filed this complaint nearly after one year of the closing date of AMC. When the Annual Maintenance Contract is not in live the complainant cannot claim either the new processor in the place of old processor or the cost of the processor. That too within the AMC period, the complainant failed to issue any notice regarding the non-attendance of Opposite parties to do service to the processor, thus, the complainant not established that fact with any substantial evidence.  Hence, we do not find any merits in this case, as such this complaint is dismissed.

          Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23^nd day of July, 2014.

    Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

Member                                                                          President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam

Consumer Complaint No:85/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

NIL

    Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-

  Member                                                                         President (FAC)

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                       Visakhapatnam