Order No.  12  dt.  06/11/2019

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant agreed to purchase an almirah at a price of Rs.38,517/- on 15/08/2017. The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.24,000/- on 15/08/2017. Subsequently the complainant paid the balance amount and the almirah was delivered on 23/09/2017. After two days of delivery complainant noticed that the lock of the said almirah was not properly functioning, accordingly, he contacted with the o.p. no.2 and as per their advice the complainant informed the authorized service center of the o.p. no.2. Subsequently the authorized person of the o.p. attended on 25/09/2017 and solved the said disorder. Thereafter, within 2 to 3 weeks from the said date the complainant further made a complaint and one technician inspected the said almirah and who tried to satisfy the complainant by patch work but the problem was not properly cured. The complainant thereafter made further complaint to the o.ps by saying colour of the almirah became discolour and one technical person inspected the same on 09/02/2018 but no tangible result was found. The complainant thereafter made several complaints to the o.ps and he also noticed that almirah was a defective one and the o.p. no.2 pushed to sell the said product to the complainant but the complainant purchased the said almirah from the o.p. no.2 on the advice and good faith on the o.p. no.2. The complainant thereafter sent Lawyer’s notice to the o.ps asking for replacing the said almirah or reimbursement of the purchased amount of the almirah since the o.ps did not take any steps for which the complainant alleged that the almirah became discoloured due to inherent manufacturing defect. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for replacement of the said almirah or refund the purchased price amounting to Rs.38,517/-. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  

            O.p. no.1 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. It was categorically stated that the claim of the complainant that the almirah had the manufacturing defect cannot be proved without the examination of the said almirah by an expert. The answering o.p. stated that the service center has not been made a party to this case. In his absence the authenticity of the job card cannot be accepted or denied by the o.p. no.1. From the complainant itself it is crystal clear that the complainant has made several complaints on several days and the same was attended by the authorized service centre i.e. Alert Security without any delay and the complaints were successfully attended and resolved to the satisfaction of the customer. The series of annexures ‘D’, É’, ‘F’ will corroborate the said fact and there are no adverse remarks from the complainant. If there would have been any problem during the service the same would have been incorporating in the job card. The o.p. no.1 did not receive any communication from the complainant and as such, o.p. no.1 cannot be held responsible for the defects as alleged by the complainant. the complainant has mentioned that service warranty clause on the same product has not been annexed by him with the petition of complaint and complainant did not pray for any appointment of expert to substantiate his claim that the almirah provided to the complainant had any manufacturing defect at the time of delivery of the said product of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The o.p. no.2 has not contested the case, as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against o.p. no.2.

On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties the following points are to be decided :-

1. Whether the complainant purchased the said almirah which is manufactured by the o.p. no.1?
2. Whether there was/is any manufacturing defects in respect of the said almirah?
3. Whether there was/is any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.?
4. Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.           

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant agreed to purchase an almirah at a price of Rs.38,517/- on 15/08/2017. The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.24,000/- on 15/08/2017. Subsequently the complainant paid the balance amount and the almirah was delivered on 23/09/2017. After two days of delivery complainant noticed that the lock of the said almirah was not properly functioning, accordingly, he contacted with the o.p. no.2 and as per their advice the complainant informed the authorized service center of the o.p. no.2. Subsequently the authorized person of the o.p. attended on 25/09/2017 and solved the said disorder. Thereafter, within 2 to 3 weeks from the said date the complainant further made a complaint and one technician inspected the said almirah and who tried to satisfy the complainant by patch work but the problem was not properly cured. The complainant thereafter made further complaint to the o.ps by saying colour of the almirah became discolour and one technical person inspected the same on 09/02/2018 but no tangible result was found. The complainant thereafter made several complaints to the o.ps and he also noticed that almirah was a defective one and the o.p. no.2 pushed to sell the said product to the complainant but the complainant purchased the said almirah from the o.p. no.2 on the advice and good faith on the o.p. no.2. The complainant thereafter sent Lawyer’s notice to the o.ps asking for replacing the said almirah or reimbursement of the purchased amount of the almirah since the o.ps did not take any steps for which the complainant alleged that the almirah became discoloured due to inherent manufacturing defect. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for replacement of the said almirah or refund the purchased price amounting to Rs.38,517/-. The complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

            The Lawyer of the o.p.no.1 argued that the claim of the complainant that the almirah had the manufacturing defect cannot be proved without the examination of the said almirah by an expert. The answering o.p. stated that the service center has not been made a party to this case. In his absence the authenticity of the job card cannot be accepted or denied by the o.p. no.1. From the complainant itself it is crystal clear that the complainant has made several complaints on several days and the same was attended by the authorized service centre i.e. Alert Security without any delay and the complaints were successfully attended and resolved to the satisfaction of the customer. The series of annexures ‘D’, É’, ‘F’ will corroborate the said fact and there are no adverse remarks from the complainant. If there would have been any problem during the service the same would have been incorporating in the job card. The o.p. no.1 did not receive any communication from the complainant and as such, o.p. no.1 cannot be held responsible for the defects as alleged by the complainant. the complainant has mentioned that service warranty clause on the same product has not been annexed by him with the petition of complaint and complainant did not pray for any appointment of expert to substantiate his claim that the almirah provided to the complainant had any manufacturing defect at the time of delivery of the said product of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an undissputed fact that the complainant purchased an almirah at a price of Rs.38,517/- on 15/08/2019 and he paid Rs.24,000/- on the same date and the balance amount was paid by him on the date of delivery. The almirah was installed in his house the complainant has stated that he noticed that there was some trouble in the lock of the said almirah which was informed to the o.p. no.2 and the o.p. no.2 provided the name of the service centre and the service centre changed the said lock of the almirah. The complainant has also stated that during the period of warranty whenever he made complaint to the service centre the representative of that service centre attended the call of the complainant and subsequently defects were removed. Complainant for the purpose of establishing the fact that the almirah had the manufacturing defect has claimed that he noticed that the colour of the said almirah become fade and he made complaint which was not resolved. In order to ascertain the fact of manufacturing defect the complainant has not filed any petition for any expert’s opinion to ascertain the fact that the almirah in question had the manufacturing defect, on the contrary it appears from the materials on record that whenever the complainant lodged his complaint to the service centre, technicians from the said service centre attended the call of the complaint and rectified the defects. The complainant filed documents to show that the authorized representative of the service centre attended on numerous occasions but the complainant did not file any job card to show that he made endorsement showing that he was not satisfied regarding the work done by the technician. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant being an Advocate who is fully aware that in order to substantiate manufacturing defect he ought to have filed a petition praying for appointment of an expert to substantiate his claim but no such step was taken by the complainant. It is crystal clear that the complainant though on the basis of his complain the technician of service centre attended the complainant’s call but the service centre has not been made a party in this case. Therefore, we holld that the case suffers from defect of necessary party as well as complainant failed to prove that the almirah supplied to the complainant had the manufacturing defect. If that be the so on why complainant had not taken steps for substantiate his claim.

            In view of the said facts and circumstances as stated above, we find from the materials on record that the complainant made numerous complaints and the representative of the service centre attended the call, therefore, during the warranty period the service was provided to the complainant and the minor defects were removed for which the complainant did not raise any objection in the job card endorsing his dissatisfaction regarding the service provided by the attendant from the service centre. Apart from the said fact the service centre has not been made a party to ascertain as to what was the defect found by the representative of the service centre in respect of the said almirah.

            Having regard to the facts stated above we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and complainant has failed to substantiate his claim, therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no.1 and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, it is ordered,

            that the case no.CC/311/2018 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no.2.