Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/136/2010

Awani Ranjan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Owner Cum Manager, Monokamana & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kr. Jha

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                                    District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

  Complain Case No. - 136/2010.

1. Awani Ranjan,S/o- Shri R.K.P. Varma, Through Dr, Askhok Kumar Singh, Mohalla – Pankhatolee, Kalambhag Road, P.S-Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur ………………………………..………..……………....complainants 

V/s

1. Honour   cum Manager, Manokaman Tilak Maidan Road, P.S-Town, District-Muzaffarpur
2. Manager Authorized , Philips service Centre  M/S Fill Star Majlis Sahay Len, Motijeel, P.S-Town, District- Muzaffarpur…………………………………………….....Opposite party.

                                                     Date of order- 29-06-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                           President,

       Consumer Forum   

        Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh-   Member,

     Consumer Forum ,

      Muzaffarpur

 

Advocate for complainant – Shri  - Manoj Kumar Jha - Advocate

Advocate for opposite party- Shri -  A.P. Gupta- Advocate

Order

           The complainant has filed this case for recovery  of  Rs. 39,00/- the value of his VCD/MP3 player and repair cost of Rs. 550/- with 18% interest further he has claimed Rs. 10,000/- as mental, torturing and further demanded Rs. 2500/- as cost of the suit and damage from the opposite party.

The case of the complainant appears from the complaint petition supported with an affidavit that he has purchased the Philips 25160 VCD/MP3 player, through Cash Memo NO.-592 dated 31-05-2008 on payment of Rs. 3900/- from the shop of opposite party No.-1 who has assured him to remove the defects if arises at any time he started his VCD at his house and after loading casset by the first day o “No DISC” Signal appears. Then and there he purchased the opposite party no.-1 to remove its defects who has shown his inability and direct him go to opposite party No-2 who has local Authorized Service Centre. Further he purchased the opposite party no.-2 who has stated that the casset loader of the instrument is defectives which require removal which can be done within two weeks then he left his VCD at the opposite party no.-2. Latter on after two week he visited opposite party.2 to take the delivery of his VCD after repair but he again require time that the part is not available and after 4 month he returned his VCD by saying that all his ok and taken Rs. 250/- as repair cost. Complainant wanted to move his VCD through casset at the shop of opposite party no.-2 who refuses. Again he wanted to load casset at his house in VCD but VCD was not moved again opposite party no.-2 has kept his VCD for 2 month further for repair and return without  repair and has taken Rs. 300/- as the cost of repair. As such after lapse of warranty period they have not corrected the set after that through paid service his has send his VCD again to the opposite party no.-2 on 04-09-2009 but opposite party not return the set till 06-09-2009 and avoided with saying that the VCD has not been repaired a such his VCD player is kept with the opposite party no.-2 as such opposite party has not fullfield the condition of guaranty card accordingly the complainant has filed this case that aforesaid claim on 02-12-2010. Complainant has filed the Xerox copy of purchase receipt annexure-1 for Rs. 39,08/- dated 31-05-2008 annexure-1, Xerox copy of authorized Philips service centre deposited of his set on dated 04-09-2009 annexure-2, promise to deliver on 06-09-2009.

In this case opposite party no.-2 has filed his written statement dated 25-02-2012 supported with an affidavit alleging therein that the complainant has no right to file this case against the opposite party no.-2. He has filed this case with a view to start and lowering down the prestige and influence of multi-national company. This case is hopelessly barred by law of limitation, waiver and  estople. He wants to changing a new set after more than    years expiry of warranty period which has already expired on 30-05-2008 to the he has further alleged that the complainant estople false and concocted he has never changed single forthing rather has changed the defective part and after being fully satisfied with the set and has signed on form and taken back his set which will clear from annexure-2 itself and on the aforesaid basis he has prayed to discharging him from the liability. He has further filed supplementary written statement dated 05-12-2013 mentioning therein that he is a service centre authorized by Philips India Limited. Admittedly he has repaired  the VCD player of complainant by two time under warranty period and after expiry of warranty period opposite party no.-2 is not at all responsible for repair of set of free of cost he has purchased the set on 31-05-2008 and warranty period expired on 30-05-2009 the complainant has purchased his set on04-09-2019 after expiry of warranty and on that date defective part was not at all available for which he contacted the company on which the company has informed him that the defective part is now out of manufacturer  so it is impossible to supply  he has so many time and occasion advise the complainant to take back his set but he refuses to get and file this case he is ready to return his set and on this score he has prayed to dismiss the case.

          And he has counter claim Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost mental and physical harassment. The complainant further has filed it is rejoinder against the supplementary written statement on dated 26-12-2013 alleging that the defective part is not available he is admitting the case of the complainant  by this allegations the complainant wanted to know the name and address of the relevant officers of the responsible officers of the office.

In this case opposite party no-2 need not appear in this case and not file any written statement he was deward  from filing  the written statement by order dated  25-02-2012. Heard the case only for the complainant opposite party we became absent but considering the age of the case that is of  2010, it has been taken of for hearing and disposal after going through the allegations of the respective parties admittedly the complainant has purchased the VCD on dated 31-05-2008 and his warranty was expired after one year that is on 30-05-2009 admittedly the VCD is available with the opposite party no.-2 and the complainant is not taking it after several request the opposite party no.-2 has admittedly that during the course of warranty period he had repaired and remove the defect of VCD player of complainant and he had not taken  any price/cost of repair. Latter on expiry of warranty his set became defect and has contacted that opposite party no-2 who has informed him that the defective part is not available and is out of manufacture as per the information given by the company.

Considering the facts circumstances material allegations available with the record admittedly present case has been filed after lapse of the limitation period of filing which is only two years and it also appears that the warranty period has also been gone. As such we are of the opinion that case of the complainant is not tenable in Eye of law as well as fact from any corner  he has to receive his set from the opposite party which his own initiative as such it appears to say that the complainant is unable to prove his case and case is liable to be dismissed

Accordingly the case and the same is dismissed with cost.

 

Member                                                       President