MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

06.08.2024

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased Livpure Luminious Touch Plus for domestic use from OP1 by paying a sum of Rs. 13,950/- on 21.04.2013. The product was duly covered under warranty w.e.f 24.04.2013 to 24.04.2014. It is alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid product was not working properly for a long period and as such she lodged the complaint with OP1 but no steps were taken by OP1 to rectify the defects in the product. The complainant also submit the written complaint in respect to the malfunctioning of the product in question to OP2 on 04.01.2014 as well as on 20.01.2014 but all in vain. Having no other option the complainant served legal notice through his counsel to both the OPs to refund the cost of the product along with interest as well as to pay litigation expenses and compensation in total the OPs were called upon to pay a sum of Rs 72,000/-. Despite receiving the legal notice no steps were taken by the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant as such being aggrieved by the conduct and deficiency on the part of OPs complainant approached this Commission for redressal of her grievance.

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs. Despite service neither OP1 appeared nor filed its WS as such OP1 was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on 24.09.2018. OP2 filed its WS wherein it denied any deficiency in service. It is further stated that no written complaint was submitted by complainant to OPs as alleged in the complaint rather on 03.04.2014, itself the service engineer of OP2 visited the premises of the complainant and conduct the regular service of the machine to the satisfaction of the complaint. The OP2 has provided the service of the machine, change of spare parts and has rectified the fault free of charge without any delay as the product is under warranty. It is further stated that the allegation made in the complaint are baseless and frivolous one, hence, be rejected.

3.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP2 filed thereby denying the averments made in the written statement.

4.         Complainant has filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has corroborated the contents of her complaint.

5.         Despite opportunity OP2 failed to file its evidence by way of affidavit. Both the parties filed their respective written arguments.

6.         Perusal of the record shows that case pertains to the year 2014. Despite ample opportunities no one came forward to address the arguments as the present complaint case is oldest one. File perused. Reserve for order.

7.         The sole question for our consideration in the present complaint is whether the product in question is defective one. The complainant in her entire complaint has repeatedly alleged that the product in question is not functioning properly. Despite bare version no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to establish her contention in respect to the non functioning of the machine in question. She even did not clarify in her complaint as to what kind of defect arose in the machine for which she was compelled to approach this Commission.

8.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant failed to establish case of deficiency in service on the part of OP due to lack of documentary evidence.We therefore find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

9.         Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   06.08.2024.

             SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                          RAJESH

            PRESIDENT                                MEMBER                                     MEMBER