STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.30 of 2011)

                                                                   Date of Institution:14.02.2011

                                                                   Date of Decision  :04.03.2011

Sh. Sartej Singh Narula (Advocate) son of Late Sh. Daljit Singh Narula resident of H.No.23, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant.

V e r s u s

1.      Samsung Electronics Company Limited, through its Managing Director, 6^th Floor, IFCI Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

2.      Samsung Electronics Company Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.4-5, Sector 8C, Chandigarh.

3.     M/s Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1112, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

              ....Respondents.

BEFORE:            MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                 This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a 2 Ton Split AC from OP No.3 i.e. M/s Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 20.3.2009 for Rs.31,000/-. It was averred that from May 2009, it started giving problem of cooling and the compressor and thimble of the AC were replaced under warranty by the technicians of OPs No.1 and 2 but despite that, the problem persisted. As per the complainant, again on inspection by the team of technicians of OPs, it was informed that the condenser of the AC needed replacement, for which the complainant was told to bear half the cost of the condenser. It was alleged that various requests were made to the OPs to change the condenser free of charge or to replace the AC with a new one but OPs did not pay any heed to his requests. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OPs amounting to deficiency in service, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                     In their joint reply, OPs No.1 and 2 submitted that the first complaint relating to the AC was made by the complainant on 20.5.2010. The machine was also checked on the same date and the defect was also pointed out to the complainant but the said AC was out of warranty and the complainant was to bear the cost of condenser to be replaced. It is pleaded that the complainant did not give his consent for its payment for replacement despite the same being out of warranty period. The complainant, as per the OPs, was also offered a waiter of 50% on the charges payable but he refused to accept the same. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, these OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 12.1.2011 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

6.                 The complainant has challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

7.                 We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and have perused the record as to whether the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is not worth admitting for regular hearing.

8.                 The AC was purchased by the complainant on 20.3.2009. There was certain problem with the AC in May 2009 and the compressor and thimble of the AC were replaced. It was a year later on 21.5.2010 when the AC was inspected again and condenser needed replacement. By that time, the warranty of the AC, which was only for one year, had expired. The contention of the complainant is that since the AC was used by him scarcily, the OPs are liable to change the condenser under warranty without charging anything from him. This contention was not accepted by the learned District Forum and we also are not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that the liability of OPs to replace the parts under warranty without charging anything from the complainant was only one year. The said period of warranty was over. Any defect occurring thereafter is liable to be rectified on payment. The OPs were generous enough to waive 50% of the cost of the new condenser but the complainant did not accept the same. It is not made out from the complaint if earlier, there had been any defect in the condenser. The compressor and the thimble were replaced in May 2009 and thereafter, there was no complaint of any malfunctioning of the AC during the period of warranty. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the OPs are not liable to replace the condenser free of charge.

9.                 In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint was not maintainable. The same has rightly been dismissed by the learned District Forum. The present appeal is devoid of merit and should not be admitted for regular hearing. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

10.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

4^th March 2011.

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.30 of 2011)

Argued by:            Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Dated the 4^th day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed in limine.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)                                              (NEENA SANDHU)    

                MEMBER                                                            PRESIDING MEMBER