Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. :  245

                                                                   Instituted on     : 21.04.2022

                                                                   Decided on       : 24.01.2024

Usha Devi Age-65 years, wife of Sh. DayaNand r/o 766 Ward no.18 Shastri Nagar,Rohtak

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd. Onida House, G-1 M.I.D.C. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400093 through its Managing Director
2. Verma Electronic Shop no.8 Palika Bazar Rohtak through its Prop..
3. Shivam Refrigeration Prem Nagar Chowk Rohtak through its Prop.

…….Respondents/Opposite parties.

                   COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.RajnishHooda, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties already exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that complainant had purchased Onida AC 1.5 Ton vide invoice no.2663 dated 30.4.2018 from opposite party no.2 who is authorized dealer of opposite party no.1 i.e. manufacturer of said AC and opposite party no.3 is authorized service centre. There was 5 years warranty on the said AC was.After the purchase, it was found that the said AC was not working properly and was not giving proper cooling and a complaint was made on 14.04.2021 and on 17.06.2021. The same was repaired by the opposite party No.3 and PCB was changed but the opposite party No.3 charged an amount of Rs.12750/- from the complainant whereas the AC was within warranty period. After changing the PCB also, the AC was not properly working and as such a complaint dated 21.03.2022 was made by the complainant to the customer care number but nobody came for inspection of AC and only after discussion on phone, it was told that the PCB will be changed and complainant has to pay the amount again. Opposite party no.3 had already changed PCB on 17.06.2021 and charged Rs.12750/- from the complainant whereas the AC was within warranty period but the opposite parties again demanded the amount for changing the PCB. Hence it is proved that a defective AC has been supplied by the opposite parties which was having manufacturing defect.  Complainant requested the opposite parties many a times either to remove the defect or to replace the said AC and to refund the amount of Rs.12750/- but the opposite parties have been avoiding the same on one pretext or the other. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed  to refund the price of AC amounting to Rs.37000/-, to refund the amount of Rs.12750/- illegally charged from the complainant with interest thereon and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of unnecessary harassment and litigationexpensesto the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the respondent/opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No. 2 & 3 received back duly served. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 & 3 and as such opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.08.2022 of this Commission. Opposite party also did not appear on dated 08.12.2022 and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.12.2022 of this Commission.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3and closed his evidence on dated 24.02.2023.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                We have perused the documents placed on record by complainant. In the present case complainant had purchased the AC on 30.04.2018 which is proved from the bill Ex.C1. There was some defect inthe AC so the same was repaired on 17.06.2021 after replacement of PCB and opposite party charged Rs.12750/- from the complainant which was having 3 months warranty. Thereafter complainant made a complaint on  dated 21.03.2022 i.e. after 9 months of change of PCB. The complainant failed to place on record any authentic evidence i.e. report of technician to prove the defect in the alleged A.C. Neither any complaint number nor any documentary evidence is placed on record.  So the complainant has failed to prove the fact that the A.C. was having manufacturing defect.

6.                In view of the fact and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

24.01.2024.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.