Jarnail Singh filed a consumer case on 16 Feb 2023 against Nagar Enterprises in the Patiala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/19/400 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Mar 2023.
Punjab
Patiala
CC/19/400
Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Nagar Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)
Inperson
16 Feb 2023
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 400 of 25.9.2019
Decided on: 16.2.2023
Jarnail Singh S/o S.Amar Singh, R/o House No.65-S, Sant Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Nagra Enterprises, SCO-202, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Patiala. through its Proprietor/Partner Baljit Singh
Onida Customer Relation Centre, Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ONIDA House-II, Mukand Ground Floor, Mahal Industrial Estate, Off. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 (Maharashtra) through its Chairman/MD.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM
Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President
Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member
PRESENT: Sh.Jarnail Singh, complainant in person.
None for OP No.1.
Sh.Balwinder Deep Singh, counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER
The instant complaint is filed by Jarnail Singh S/o S.Amar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Nagra Enterprises and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
The averments of the complainant are as follows:
That complainant purchased one ONIDA AC 123 TRC WA123TRC # 17LM # 000319 on 10.4.2019 for an amount of Rs.22,500/-and since the date of its installation is not working properly. Complainant made complaint to OP No.1 but it neither repairednor replaced the same. After coming back from abroad complainant again made complaint to OP No.1 but it did not give any response. OPs sold 2017 year model to the complainant instead of 2018-2019.Complainant many times requested OPs o remove the defect or to replace the same but the OPs did not pay any heed to his requests. Ultimately, complainant sent legal notice dated 26.8.2019 through registered post but all in vain. OPs have sold a defective AC which is suffering from manufacturing defect and they did not remove the defects despite several requests. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.
Notice to the OPs was issued through registered post. OP No.1 appeared through its representative whereas OP No.2 appeared through counsel. Both the parties filed their respective written statements.
In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased on ONIDA AC on 10.4.2019 for an amount of Rs.22,500/-. On merits, it is submitted that no complaint was made by the complainant. Further after purchase of the AC of any company, service is being provided by the authorized service centre of the respective brand and there is no liability of OP No.1 with regard to service of the product. It is submitted that OP No.1 had purchased the same from Chhabra Traders, Samana on 22.6.2018 and has sold the same to the complainant on 10.4.2019.The complainant purchased the said AC after satisfying himself. If there is any defect, he has to approach the authorized service centre. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
In the written statement filed by OP No.2 it took various preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has failed to purchase the product from an authorized dealer of the manufacturer. It is submitted that there is no privity of contract between OPs No.1&2. It is further submitted that OP No.2 has not sold the product to the complainant and also is not the manufacturer of the product. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint OP No.2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
In support of his complaint, complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his self declaration, Ex.C1 copy of tax invoice, Ex.C2 copy of passport, Ex.C3 copy of sticker affixed on the AC, Ex.C4 copy of legal notice,Ex.C5 and C6 copies of postal receipts,Ex.C7 copy of E-ticket and closed the evidence.
Representative of OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Baljit Singh, Prop. of OP No.1 alongwith document,Ex.OP1 copy of invoice dated 22.6.2018 and closed the evidence.
Representative of OP No.2 tendered in evidence his Ex.OPB affidavit alongwith documents Ex.OP2 authority letter, Ex.OP3 copy of reply to legal notice and closed the evidence.
We have heard the complainant and ld. counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
Admittedly, complainant has purchased the AC in question on 10.4.2019 vide invoice,Ex.C1 for Rs.22,500/- from OP No.1.The grievance of the complainant is that right from the date of its installation, AC is not working properly. Complainant has failed to establish on record that AC is not working properly .He has not produced on record any complaint made in this regard to OP No.1 or OP No.2. It is also not proved that defective AC was sold to him. Complainant has also not placed on record any job sheet with regard to the repair of the AC. The documents produced on record are not helping to the case of the complainant. Thus the complainant has failed to prove his case by placing cogent and reliable evidence on record.
Consequently, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL
Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.