BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.375 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.10.2014

Date of Decision :17.03.2015

Bannu Ram Chahal aged about 66 years son of Late Sh.Kabul SIngh R/o B-143, Tower Town, Behin TV Tower, Jalandhar-144014.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Royco Industries, Nakodar Road, Near Khalsa School, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. HSIL Limited, Unit No.301-302, 3rd Floor, Park Centra, Sector-30, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Gautam Roy,Auth.Signatory of OP No.1.

Sh.KPS Gill Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that on 30.3.2012 the complainant purchased a Chimney for Rs.7605/- alongwith a Cook Top Rs.12301/-. For the purchase of both these items, the complainant paid total Rs.19906/- to opposite party No.1 which the opposite party No.1 received from complainant vide their invoice No.2248 dated 30.3.2012. Warranty for a period of 60 months from the date of purchase was given for above said appliance by the opposite parties. Within warranty period, in the Ist week of October 2014, the above said appliance(Chimney) became out of order. Various defects arose in it such as body shaking, sucking capacity low down and nuisance noise started. The complainant brought the above defects into the notice of opposite party No.1 who directed the complainant to lodge compliant with opposite party No.2. Accordingly on 9.10.2014 the complainant lodged a complaint vide No.MJ18800 with opposite party No.2 and against this complaint one mechanic namely Anil Kumar came to check the appliance on 10.10.2014 and after check up he went back without rectifying the defects. So, the complainant again lodged complaint vide No.MJ20340 on 14.10.2014 which was assigned to Anil Kumar mentioned above. Anil Kumar told the complainant that he has already checked the appliance(Chimney) and found that the said defects were non-repairable due to some manufacturing defect in the chimney and further told that the said defects can not be rectified. However, he advised the complainant to purchase a new chimney. The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 several times but despite several visits and so many requests made by complainant to opposite party No.1 and so many telephonic calls to opposite party No.2, the opposite parties have failed and ignored to repair/replace the said appliance which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of cost of the chimney. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party no.1 pleaded that they have no authority to give any service towards the product during warranty period and he made calls to opposite party no.2 but nobody attended the same. It has no role in this case.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2 pleaded that the present complaint as framed is not maintainable in the eye of law and is liable to be dismissed forthwith as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 received the complaint on 9.10.2014 and as a gesture of goodwill the product in question was replaced with a new product within a reasonable time on 12.11.2014 although there was no manufacturing defect in same. The present complaint has been duly attended to the complete satisfaction of complainant as on 12.11.2014, the product in question was replaced by opposite party No.2 with a brand new product. It is pertinent to mention that present complaint was duly attended before receiving the summons/notice of this Forum by opposite party No.2 as the notice and summons of this Forum was issued on 5.12.2014.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, authorized signatory of opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered documents Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased a Chimney from opposite party No.1 for Rs.7605/- alongwith Cook Top vide retail invoice dated 30.3.2012 Ex.C1. According to the complainant, during warranty i.e in the first week of October 2014, the above said chimney became out of order and he brought the defect in the notice of opposite party No.1 who directed him to lodge complaint with opposite party No.2. In para 6 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that on 9.10.2014 he lodged a complaint with opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has already replaced the Chimney with new one. Complainant suffered a statement on 2.12.2014 that opposite party No.1 has replaced the Chimney with new one but he wants to continue the complaint. The complainant has lodged a complaint with opposite party No.2 on 9.10.2014 as pleaded by him in para 6 of the complaint and admittedly the Chimney was replaced by opposite party No.2 before 2.12.2014 when the complainant suffered statement that the Chimney has been replaced with new one. It is in the written reply of opposite party No.2 that Chimney was replaced on 12.11.2014 within reasonable time. The complainant himself gave letter of satisfaction dated 12.11.2014 to opposite party No.2 wherein it is mentioned that the company has attended his complaint to his entire satisfaction and the product performs normal working and he has no complaint pending with the company and he is fully satisfied with the service rendered by the company. Since after receiving the complaint the opposite party No.2 has replaced the Chimney of the complainant with new one, although complainant has used his old Chimney for more than 2-1/2 years, as such we feel that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

17.03.2015 Member Member President