DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 92 of 18-03-2008<br /> Decided on :21-05-2008 <br /> <br /> Pargat Singh S/o Sh. Punjab Singh R/o Village Lakhi Jangle, Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> M/s. Unique Enterprises, Shop No. 6, Near Urang Cinema, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> ... Opposite party <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Aklia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. G.D. Sharma, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant had purchased one R.O. System from the opposite party on 12.12.06 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/-. As per scheme prevalent at that time, free Gas Geyser or Rs. 2,000/- in cash was/were to be given to the purchaser of the R.O. System. Accordingly opposite party deducted Rs. 2,000/- from the total sale consideration and received the balance amount of Rs. 9500/-. Invoice No. 42 dated 12.12.06 was issued. One year warranty was provided. It was declared by the opposite party that it would provide three services free of cost for its proper functioning. It was installed by the opposite party at his residence. Service Card was also provided. After installation of the R.O. System, opposite party did not provide even a single service. It was requested to provide the requisite service but it failed to accede to his request. It continued putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. It was saying that it was working properly and there was no need for its service. Due to the fact that services were not provided, it stopped working and became defective. Thereafter opposite party was approached and defect was brought to its notice. It did not provide service by saying that warranty period has already expired. He had no other alternative but to get it repaired from Grover & Sons Electricals, Goniana Mandi by way of spending Rs. 2850/- vide bill No. 472 dated 20.2.08. Legal notice was sent by him through his counsel but to no effect. In these circumstances, this complaint has been preferred by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') to refund Rs. 2850/-; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, bothration, harassment and Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed its version taking legal objections that complaint is not within time; it is bad for non-joinder of Company Aqua Cool and complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file it. Inter-alia its plea is that it has provided three services to the R.O. System of the complainant in an year. For that, Service Card is available and it has made four entries in it. Due to the services rendered to R.O. System, it remained perfectly in order through out the year i.e. 12.12.06 to 12.12.07. In case services are not provided, product cannot work properly. He had no complaint through out the year. After expiry of three months from the warranty period, company has no liability. Allegation that he has purchased parts from Grover & Sons is fabricated one. It had agreed to provide services but complainant threatened to institute the complaint. Receipt of the legal notice is admitted. According to it proper reply of it was sent to the counsel for the complainant. They deny deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-3), photocopy of letter dated 7.3.08 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of bill dated 20.2.08 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of Service Card (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of Invoice-cum-receipt (Ex. C-7).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Sh. Jayant Kumar has been produced in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Admittedly R.O. System was purchased by the complainant on 12.12.06 from the opposite party vide Invoice-cum-receipt Ex. C-7. Warranty on this produce was for a period of one year i.e. from 12.12.06 to 12.12.07. <br /> 7. Complainant alleges that three services were to be provided during the warranty period. They have not been given to him. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that services have not been rendered during the warranty period by the opposite party. Complainant has to serve legal notice upon the opposite party copy of which is Ex. C-2. Reply of the notice has been given by the opposite party by way of taking the false plea. Even the Service Card in which entries are alleged to have been made by the opposite party regarding rendering of services during the warranty period has not been produced.<br /> 8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved as complainant has not proved that any defect in the R.O. System was pointed out during the warranty period. Since the warranty period has already expired, opposite party is not liable to render any service to the complainant. Even if it is taken that complainant has spent Rs. 2850/- on 20.2.08 for getting the defect in it removed from Grover & Sons, even then opposite party is not liable as the defect if any has been got rectified after the expiry of the warranty period.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 10. Onus to prove the version in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is required to prove his case by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. For this we are fortified by the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga V/s M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Another 2000(1) CLT 33. There is no quarrel about the fact that R.O. System was purchased on 12.12.06. Warranty on this product was one year. Generally warranty provides that in case any defect is pointed out in the product, the same would be rectified or the defective part would be replaced subject to its terms and conditions. There is no material on the record that before 12.12.07 i.e. during the warranty period any defect in the R.O. System was pointed out by the complainant. Three services were to be provided by the opposite party in case there were some problems in the product and they were brought to the notice of the opposite party. No date has been mentioned in the complaint as to when complainant approached the opposite party for availing the requisite three services. Mere fact that R.O.System became defective after expiry of the period of warranty and it has been got repaired from Grover & Sons Electricals is no ground to fasten the liability upon the opposite party and to hold that it is deficient in rendering services. So far as legal notice is concerned, it is dated 25.2.08 and the period of warranty came to an end on 12.12.07. No doubt, plea has been taken by the opposite party that it has provided three services to the complainant and for that Card is available with it and Card has not been produced, would not advance the cause of the complainant as he has to stand on his own legs. He cannot depend upon the weaknesses of the opposite party. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that stance of the opposite party is not proved even then, deficiency in services cannot be said to have been established by the complainant particularly when there is no solid evidence to establish that any defect was pointed out to the opposite party within the warranty period for availing its services free of cost. From the facts and circumstances, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that during the warranty period R.O. System was working properly and on that account complainant did not think it fit to avail the services of the opposite party nor did he move any higher authority of the company. In the reply of the notice sent by the opposite party offer has been given to the complainant to get free services from it subject to the condition that he would pay for the parts which would have to be replaced or repaired. Hence, it cannot be said that opposite party is not coming with clean hands.<br /> 11. In view of the facts, circumstances and the evidence discussed above, crux of the matter is that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not proved. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 21-05-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />