THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 607 of 2014
Date of Institution : 19.11.2014
Date of Decision : 08.09.2015
Balbir Singh son of S. Shingara Singh resident of House No. 1997MCA (Plot No.67), Sarkaria Enclave Gurdwara Plah Sahib Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Sound Trading Co.Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop/Partner authorized person to receive the summons
M/s. Kent RO Systems Ltd., Khasra No. 93, Village Bantakhedi, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand 247688 India through its Prop./Partner/Person to receive the summons
M/s. Sahib Enterprises, authorized service Franchisee of Kent RO Systems Ltd. Handa Market, Lohgarh Chowk, Amritsar Mobile No. 98550-45300 Landline No. 01836510139 through its Prop./Partner/authorized person to receive the summons
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Ashish Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite party No. 1 : Sh. Ajay Shanker,Advocate
-2-
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Vinit Sehgal, Service Executive
For opposite party No.3 : Sh.S.M.Vermani,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Balbir Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Kent RO Supreme vide Invoice No. 20075 dated 12.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 15500/-. According to the complainant from the date of purchase the said RO system was not working properly and remained out of order. The complainant approached the opposite party and the mechanic checked the Kent RO but the same could not be repaired and the same is lying out of order. Complainant has alleged that he made several requests to the opposite parties either to replace the RO system with new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the equipment . But the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency of service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to either replace the RO system with new one or to refund the cost of the Kent RO system i.e. Rs. 15500/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that the Kent RO purchased by the complainant was not working properly. It was submitted that complainant never approached the opposite party nor made any complaint. Moreover if there is any complaint , the complainant must have approached the service centre. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that complainant purchased the water purifier on 12.12.2013 whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 17.11.2014 i.e. at the fag end of the warranty period. It was submitted that during the tenure of 11 months, free services were provided to the RO system of the complainant. It was further submitted that after filing this complaint on 24.12.2014 the complainant registered a complaint that his RO system was not working and the same complaint was attended by the service provider of opposite party No.2, who after checking the said RO system advised the complainant that the filter of the machine was blocked and need replacement on payment basis because the warranty period of the filter is 6 months being consumables. But the complainant refused to make any payment and threatened the service provider with dire consequences. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that regular services were done and the system was running perfectly without any defect and even the complainant never told the opposite party that the system was not working. It was submitted that the replying opposite party never told the complainant that the RO system cannot be repaired. The service on the request of the complainant was affected free of cost and there was no such complaint about the RO system at the time of service of RO system. The RO system was sold on 12.12.2013 whereas the complaint was made by the complainant after about one year of purchase of the product. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complain was prayed.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaswinder Singh,Prop. Ex.OP1/1, copy of bill dated 12.12.2013 Ex.OP1/2.
7. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Vinit Sehgal Ex.OP2/1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP2/2, copy of service call voucher Ex.OP2/3,OP2/4, OP2/5.
8. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Manohar Lal Ex.OP3/1, copies of service call vouchers Ex.OP3/2 to OP3/4.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
10. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant purchased Kent RO Supreme vide invoice dated 12.12.2013 Ex.C-5 for a sum of Rs. 15500/-. The complainant alleges that the said Kent RO system was not working properly and remained out of order. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party. The mechanic checked the Kent RO, who could not repair the same. As such the same is lying out of order nor the opposite party replaced the RO nor refunded the cost of the equipment. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. Whereas case of opposite party No.1 is that he is the dealer and sold Kent RO manufactured by opposite party No.2. So it is the opposite party No.2 who is to fulfill the terms of the warranty or to replace the RO etc. As such opposite party No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service qua the complainant.
12. Whereas case of opposite parties No.2 & 3 is that RO system was delivered to the complainant in running condition being a new RO system. The complainant never lodged any report regarding any fault in the RO system to opposite parties No.2 & 3. Regular services were done and the RO system was running perfectly without any defect . Services on the request of the complainant were effected free of cost and there was no such complaint about the RO system at the time of service of RO system. The RO system was sold on 12.12.2013 ,whereas the present complaint has been made by the complainant on 19.11.2014 when a period of less than one month remained for the expiry of the warranty period. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
13. From the entire above discussion and from the perusal of the record particularly the services given by opposite party No.3 to the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the RO system purchased by the complainant did not suffer from any defect when complainant purchased this RO system from opposite party No.1 on 12.12.2013 as per invoice Ex.C-5. The complainant was given free service by opposite party No.3, authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 on 12.3.2014 as per service voucher Ex.C-4. At that time no problem was reported by the complainant in the RO system. Thereafter, free service was given by opposite party No.3 to the RO system of the complainant on 12.11.2014 vide service voucher Ex.C-2 and at that time also no problem was reported by the complainant in the said RO system. So at the time of filing of the complaint on 19.11.2014 there was no complaint in the RO system ever made by the complainant to the opposite parties. However, after the filing of the complaint, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 24.12.2014 and that too after the expiry of the warranty period which expired on 12.12.2014, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 vide service voucher Ex.C-3 and at that time the engineer of the opposite party pointed out that the RO system of the complainant requires service and its filters need to be replaced. As the warranty of the RO system has already expired, so the complainant was liable to get the service of the RO system as well as filters of the same replaced on chargeable basis. But the complainant refused to pay the charges. After the expiry of the warranty period, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 are justified in giving service on payment as well as replacement of filters on chargeable basis. As such , we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
14. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Complaint could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
8.9.2015 (Bhupinder Singh)
President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
/R/ Member Member
