For Complainant : Sri Trinath Singh Lal, Advocate & Associates.
For Op No.1 : None
For OP No.2 : Self
For OP No.3 : Sri Subhendra Kumar Mohanty, Advocate & associates.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she purchased one LG 1.5 ton Split AC Model-LSA 5EW5 from OP.1 for Rs.34, 352/- excluding 13.5% tax vide Invoice No.441 dt.11.5.2013 with one year warranty and after expiry of warranty period, the complainant as per request of the OP.1 deposited a sum of Rs.6519/- for an extended warranty of 3 years from 21.05.2014 to 20.05.2017 on the AC and obtained AMC card vide HLP No.014457 dt.21.05.2014. It is submitted that in the month of Feb., 2017 the complainant found cooling system of the AC defective and hence contacted OP.1 who advised the complainant to contact OP.2, the Authorised Service Centre (ASC). On contact, the OP.2 registered a complaint and assured to attend the AC in question but as the technician of OP.2 did not come to attend the AC, the complainant on 28.03.2017 contacted OP.3 and registered a complaint vide RNP-170328015416 but no action was taken by the OP.3. It is further submitted that the complainant along with her husband during 1st week of April, 2017 approached the OP.2 in his service centre and requested to attend the AC but the OP.2 replied that he has not received any AMC amount and the complainant is to bear the repair charges. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.2 to replace the PCB in order to bring the AC into working order and the Ops to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner. The OP No.2 filed a written statement stating that after getting customer complaint vide RPN-170620030502, they have replaced the main PCB of the AC with a new one free of cost and the AC is working perfectly.
3. The OP No.3 filed counter admitting the purchase of LG make AC by the complainant on 11.05.2013 for consideration and issuance of warranty card. It also admitted about availing AMC for the period 21.05.2014 to 20.05.2017 by the complainant on payment of consideration but denied the allegation of the complainant that she detected less cooling in the AC during February, 2017. It is contended that for the first time the complainant on 23.04.2017 lodged complaint of “Less Cooling” and on inspection it is detected that the PCB of AC is required to be replaced for proper functioning of the AC. Hence a complaint was registered vide Job Sheet No. RNA-170422076712 and on receipt of spare part the AC was repaired free of cost in terms of AMC and the husband of the complainant has put his signature on his full satisfaction. The OP.3 further contended that after registering the complainant, the technical persons inspected the AC and found PCB defective. Thereafter the ASC lodged its requisition to local branch office and on receipt of PCB Assembly from branch office, the same was replaced which consumed certain time and it is neither deliberate nor intentional. Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of her case. The OP No.2 filed copy of job sheet and satisfaction memo by the complainant’s husband. The OP No.3 also filed affidavit in support of its case. Heard from the complainant through her A/R and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case purchase of LG Make Split AC Model No. LSA 5EW5 by the complainant from OP.1 vides Receipt No.441 dt.11.05.2013 with one year warranty is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had made AMC on that AC for another 3 years with the Company from 21.05.2014 to 20.05.2017. The case of the complainant is that she found less cooling in the AC during Feb., 2017 and contacted OP.1 and as per advice of OP.1 she has contacted the OP.2 and registered a complaint with assurance from OP.2 that the technician will attend the defect in the AC. It is the further case of the complainant that, as the OP.2 did not attend the AC, she lodged complaint with OP.3 vides complaint No.RNP 170328015416 dt.23.03.2017 but the OP.3 did not respond. The complainant has also alleged that she approached OP.2 during April, 2017 along with her husband and produced the AMC card but the concerned person of OP.2 misbehaved the complainant.
6. The OP No.3 stated that under AMC, the OP assures to render free service and repair of AC if required by changing certain parts in case of any complaint is lodged before its ASC during the contract period. The OP.3 further stated that for the first time on 23.4.2017 a complaint was lodged alleging “less cooling” and on inspection it was found that the PCB assembly is to be changed in order to bring the AC into working condition. Accordingly a complaint was registered vide Job Sheet No. RNP-170422076712. The copy of said job sheet is available on record from which document it was seen that the complaint was lodged on 23.4.2017.
7. The complainant stated that during Feb., 2017 she contacted OP.2 and the OP.2 reregistered the complaint in his register but no such evidence is adduced with regard to said allegation. It is seen that the complainant has not mentioned the date of complaint also. Further the complainant stated that she lodged complaint with OP.3 vide RNP 170328015416 dt.28.03.2017 but failed to file any document in support of her said allegation. Bare allegation will not do. It must be supported by necessary documents and cogent evidence. Similarly, there is no iota of evidence is available on record to prove that the OP.2 misbehaved the complainant in presence of other customers. Not a single piece of paper has been filed by the complainant in support of her allegations except the copy of Invoice dt.11.05.2013 and AMC Card.
8. The OP No.3 prudently admits that after inspection and detection of fault in the AC, genuine time has been consumed to bring the spare part from local branch office and soon after its receipt, the PCB assembly was replaced and the AC is working perfectly to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is also seen from the record that the husband of the complainant has given satisfaction note with regard to the performance of the AC after repair. It is also found that the complaint was lodged on 23.04.2017 and this case has been filed on 18.05.2017 i.e. within a very short period. In view of above facts and circumstances, we do not find any deliberate or intentional delay caused by the Ops to extend due service to the complainant and hence deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is not proved.
9. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs for dismissal. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
