Punjab

Bhatinda

CC/14/1

Gurjant singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panasonic India pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Kumar Gupta

09 May 2014

ORDER

Final Order of DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,Govt.House No.16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence,BATHINDA-151001
PUNJAB
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/1
 
1. Gurjant singh
aged about 45 yars son of Mela singh r/o Guru Ki nagar st.No.A-5,Bathinda
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Panasonic India pvt ltd
Sector 25,Ist floor, ABW Tower Iffco chowk, Gurgaon Haryana through its Prop/manager/MD
2. Care Bathinda Service of Panasonic
Near Bhana Mall Trust Bathinda
3. Bharat Sales House
Mehna marg, Near Mahavir Dal Hospital Bathinda through its Prop/manager
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Varun Gupta OP No.1 and 2., Advocate
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.01 of 01-01-2014

Decided on 09-05-2014

Gurjant Singh aged about 45 years S/o Mela Singh R/o Guru Ki Nagar, Street No.A-5, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Penasonic India Private Limited, Sector 25, Ist Floor, ABW Tower, Iffco Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Proprietor/Manager/M.D./Partner/Incharge.

2.Care Bathinda Service Centre of Penasonic, Near Bhana Mall Trust, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager/M.D./Partner/Incharge.

3.Bharat Sales House, Mehna Marg, Near Mahavir Dal Hospital, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager/M.D./Incharge.

.......Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Rakesh Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Varun Gupta, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER

 

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Air Conditioner on installment basis from the opposite party No.3 with warranty on dated 23.5.2013 and paid the amount of Rs.9000/- and amount of Rs.1800/- was to be paid in 10 installments. The complainant has also paid the amount of Rs.1000/- as installation charges of the abovesaid Air Conditioner and stand. After sometime from the date of the purchase of the abovesaid Air Conditioner, it stopped working as there was defect in it. The complainant complained the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and employee of the opposite party Nos.2 came to his house and checked the abovesaid Air Conditioner, but the defect has not been cured. Thereafter the complainant many times approached the opposite parties and requested them either to replace the abovesaid Air Conditioner with new one or to refund its price, but to no effect. The complainant has got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on dated 4.10.2013, but the opposite parties neither replaced the abovesaid Air Conditioner with new one nor refunded him any amount nor repaired it. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to replace the defective Air Conditioner in question with new one or to refund its price alongwith cost and compensation or to give him any other additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant purchased the abovesaid Air Conditioner from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and entered into an agreement to make the payment to the opposite party No.2 through installments. The general conditions of warranty have been given to the complainant and he was well aware about the same. The opposite party No.2 received a complaint from the complainant and checked the product and did not find any defect in it, rather the complainant has got installed the Air Conditioner in question in a big space against the specifications of the opposite party No.1, this fact has been duly conveyed to him.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one Air Conditioner on installment basis from the opposite party No.3 with warranty on dated 23.5.2013 and paid the amount of Rs.9000/- and amount of Rs.1800/- was to be paid in 10 installments.

6. The submission of the complainant is that the Air Conditioner in question stopped working soon after its purchase as there was some defect in it. The complainant complained about the defect to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and employee of the opposite party Nos.2 came to his house and checked the abovesaid Air Conditioner, but the defect has not been cured. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice to the opposite parties on dated 4.10.2013 and requested them either to replace the abovesaid Air Conditioner with new one or to refund its price, but to no avail.

7. The opposite parties submitted that the opposite party No.2 received a complaint from the complainant and checked the product and did not find any defect in it, rather the complainant has got installed the Air Conditioner in question in a big space against the specifications of the opposite party No.1.

8. The complainant has not placed on file any document to show that there is any specific defect in the abovesaid Air Conditioner that cannot be cured. Moreover in his complaint and affidavit, the complainant has failed to specify the defect in the Air Conditioner in question. Moreover on checking the official of the opposite party No.2 found that the complainant has got installed the Air Conditioner in question in a big space i.e. bigger room, the reason for less cooling is only this and there is no defect in its working. Vinod Kumar, Authorized Representative of Care Bathinda Service Centre of Penasonic has deposed in Para No.3 of his affidavit, Ex.OP1/1, that no defect is found in the Air Conditioner in question and it has been installed by the complainant in a big space against the specifications of the opposite party No.1. The complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove that there is any defect in the abovesaid Air Conditioner.

9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above the complainant has miserably failed to prove his allegations by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Thus this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

10. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel of the complainant, have distinguishable facts and circumstances.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

09-05-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

 

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

 

 

(Jarnail Singh) Member

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jarnail Singh]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.