PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                As alleged in the complaint, the Complainant purchased a 1.5 ton Split A.C. of Samsung Company on 28.3.2010, which turned out to be non-functional, upon which umpteen number of complaints were lodged with the OP, but they failed to rectify the problem in the A.C., due to which he has been put to great inconvenience. He made written request also to the OP either to replace the A.C. or to refund the entire consideration, but there was no positive headway. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case.

3.                OP did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 

4.                Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

5.                We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the record.

6.                The main grouse of the complainant is that after purchase of the above said A.C., it turned out to be non-functional, but the OP neither had replaced it with new one nor had they refund its entire consideration price.  In support of his contentions, he has placed on record the copy of the computerized bill Annexure-1 to show that the A.C. was purchased by him from Big Bazar, Zirakpur on 28.03.2010. Annexure-2 is the copy of customer service record card which shows a defect of “flap required” was detected by the engineer of OP (service centre of Big Bazar, Zirakpur) on 10.04.2010.

7.                We have gone through the record very carefully and find that the complainant has sought relief of replacement of the A.C. or refund of its entire consideration price from the OP. Admittedly, the A.C. was not purchased from the OP; they were only the service provider and the service has been provided to the complainant; as is clear from Annexure-2. Therefore, they were however, not liable for any replacement of the A.C. or refund of its consideration price being the service provider only.  The A.C. in question was purchased by the complainant vide Annexure-1 from Big Bazar, Zirakpur,  who being a dealer would only be liable to replace the defective A.C. or its refund to the complainant but the complainant in the present case has not made them a necessary party for the reasons best known to the complainant. Hence, in our view, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of Big Bazar, Zirakpur as the necessary party. Otherwise also, had the complainant made Big Bazar, Zirakpur as a party in this complaint, then also, taking into consideration the relief of refund or replacement with a new A.C., as sought by the complainant, this Forum would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case because Big Bazar, Zirakpur does not fall under the purview of Chandigarh territorial jurisdiction. As far as the OP is concerned, being a service centre of the Big Bazar, Zirakpur, they were only liable for repair/replacement of the defective parts of the A.C. free of cost as per the warranty terms and conditions.

8.                In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The present complaint is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.