Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.        

             This  is  a complaint  petition  U/s. 12 of C.P.Act,  1986.

2.       The  case of the  complaint is that he had purchased  one Split Air Conditioner  of LG make vide model No. LSA19U1RDE2.The  unit   serial  number of the  said  account  is  512PGAG002640IN .He has purchased the Air Conditioner from the opp.party No.l  on 25.05.2007. A cash memo  was  duly issued by the  complainant to the opp.parties. The   user  manual and  warranty card of the Air Conditioner in  question were handed over to the  complainant  along with  the Air Conditioner. The  complainant  is  a contractor  who  used to  work 18 hours  per  day  and  expose   to  sun ray   due to   extensive work in    Chhendipada coalfields, where  the  temperature  varies  from 42 to 28  during  summer season. The  complainant  residing  with his  family  and children at Kosala  where the Air Conditioner has  been fitted . The  complainant  purchased the Air Conditioner to prevent  sleepless night of  family members and  to  avoid continuous head reeling .The  technical person of opp.party No.3 after due  verification of   voltage and  technical requirement  for the Air Conditioner installed the  same in the  residence of the  complainant soon after  the purchase. In the  month of May, 2010 cooling  problem   developed in the  Air Conditioner , for which the  complainant  took it to opp.party No.2 on 19.05.2010  . it  was repaired by the opp.party No.2 after payment of  repairing charge of Rs. 4735.00. The Air Conditioner worked the   next season but in the  month of April,2011 the same  problem occurred  again. The  complainant  took the Air Conditioner to opp.party No.2 on 16.04.2011 who repaired the  same on payment of Rs.1400.00 .Again  on 11.05.2011  the opp.party No.2 repaired the  Air Conditioner , charging an amount  of Rs.2170.00 . Although the compressor of the Air Conditioner was  within  warranty period, the opp.party No.2 has charged  for repairing. Again in the  month of March,2012 the  Air Conditioner did not   cool properly  for   a fault  in the  compressor. Immediately the  complainant lodged  complaint  through toll free number  on 12.03.2012  vide complaint  No. RNA 120328087832, RNA 120409057890 dtd09.04.2012,RNA 120421002620 on 21.04.2021.The  opp.party did not  respond  to all the complaints made by the  complainant. Finding  no  other way the  complainant contacted opp.party No.2, who was  the  authorised  service  Centre of opp.aprtyNo.3  situated  at Angul. The opp.party No.2 showed  his inability to  comply the  problem  raised by the complainant. The  fault   in the  compressor  arose  from May,2010  , which persist  till  2012. Due  to such  fault   in the compressor  in the Air Conditioner  the complainant, his  family members suffered mental agony. The  complainant  sustained  loss  due  payment of  repairing  charges within  warranty. The opp.parties  are  responsible  for  replacement of the   compressor  when it  defective. Instead of   replacing the  compressor  the opp.party No.2  had replaced some  components  arbitrarily  and  charged Rs.4735.00  from the   complainant. The opp.party No.2 & 3 adopted unfair trade practice. Hence this  case.

3.       Notices were issued to all the opp.parties through Regd. Pos A.Ds  on 22.05.2012 .All the A.D cards are also  on record, which shows that  notices were duly served on  all the opp.parties. Inspite of   notice opp.party No.1 & 2 did not  appear before this authority nor filed  their show cause.

          The  case of opp.party No.3  is that the  complainant is  to  prove the  purchase of  Air conditioner  on 22.05.2007  by  producing the original  invoice  and  warranty card. The opp.party No.3 has no comment on the  development  of  defect in  Air conditioner in the  month of  May, 2010 . Service  was provided  to him by  repairing the  Air conditioner. The  complainant is  to produce  the cogent  evidence  regarding such defect  in the  compressor and   repairing. The Air conditioner  is  with  one  year  warranty  on  complete Air conditioner and  additional five  years warranty on the compressor only. Paid  servicing  has been provided  to the  complainant, there is  no  unfair trade practice by the opp.party No.3  .After the warranty  period  of one  year   is over, service  is to be  provided on  payment of   charge. This   Forum has  no  jurisdiction to try  this  case. The  complaint  has  purchased the Air conditioner from  opp.party No.1 at Bhubaneswar on 25.05.2007 . The opp.party No.3  has no head office  or   branch office at Angul. The  complainant  failed to  prove manufacturing  defect in the Air conditioner  purchased by him. The  complainant  has not  produced the  alleged  defective  compressor  before the Forum nor prayed  for  test of the  same  by the expert  at authorised laboratory, So  the  complainant   failed to  prove  the  alleged  defect in the  compressor  and also failed to  prove  deficiency  in service  by  opp.party No.3. The case  be  dismissed  with cost.

4.       Admittedly  opp.party No.1 & 2 neither filed  show cause  nor contested the  case . Only opp.party No.3 appeared  and  contested  the  case by filing  reply/show cause. The  opp.party No.3 has  challenged  the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum (  as exiting then).According to him the  air conditioner  was purchased  from Bapuji Nagar,Bhubaneswar and used by  the  complainant  at Kosala,P.S.Chhendipada of Angul district. According  to opp.party No.3 he has no branch office at Angul or  Kosala  , for which the  then existing Forum at Angul has no jurisdiction. It is  further argued on  behalf of    opp.party No.3  that the opp.party No.3 is  not  carrying  on  his business at Kosala  and Angul. He also  vehemently argued that there is  no cause  of  action at Kosala or Angul, for which the case  is  filed. Admittedly the air conditioner was  purchased by the  complainant  from  Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar and used by  him at Kosala  in his  residence.

          From the materials on record  it is clear that the  air conditioner purchased by the  complainant  suffers  from defect at Kosala  under the  jurisdiction of District Forum, Angul for the  first time  in the  month of May, 2010 . The present  case was  filed  under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Section-11(2) (c )  provides  that  “ the district forum  has jurisdiction  to  decide the  dispute, where the  cause of action  wholly  or  in part arises”. There is  no dispute that the  authorised  service centre  of opp.party No.3  exists at Angul  where  the  air conditioner was repaired in the year 2010. The  authorised  service centre  has  been  authorised by  opp.party No.3- company  who has  manufactured  the air conditioner. So the  repairing  work done by opp.party No.2  is  for  the  business of the  company–opp.party No.3 .So it  can be  safely said that that the opp.party No.3  carries on business and works  for  gain at Angul through  its  authorised  service centre –opp.party No.2. So  the argument  of opp.party No.3  that the  Forum  at Angul has  no jurisdiction is  not  accepted .

5.       It is  further  argued that there is  no dispute  for  adjudication  by  this Forum . From the  photocopy   of the  cash  memo  issued by the opp.party No.2 after repairing of the air conditioner shows that the   air conditioner purchased  by the  complainant  suffers from  defect. So the plea  of the  opp.party No.3  that there is  no dispute  for  adjudication  is  not  accepted.

6.       The opp.party No.3  has also taken  the   plea  that the     defect appeared  in the  air conditioner  is   not   within the  warranty  period. At paragraph- 12   of the  written statement  the opp.party No.3  admitted that he  has  no  comment on paragraph- 4 & 5  of the  complaint petition  relating to the  defect developed  in the air conditioner in May, 2010. At  paragraph-10  of the  written statement  the opp.party No.3  has specifically  demanded the  production of the  original invoice and warranty card  duly sealed and  signed by  the opp.party No.1 .Although  the  complainant in  his  complaint petition has specifically mentioned that  he has  purchased the air conditioner on 25.05.2007  from opp.party No.1  who  had  issued  cash memo, owners manual and warranty card to the  complainant, he  has not produced  the same  before this Forum. He has only produced the photocopy  of  one  page, showing  warranty. There is  no reason as to why the  complainant has  not  produced  the  original  invoice and  warranty card  , although  it is  in  his possession. The  complainant  failed  to prove that he  has purchased  the air conditioner from opp.party No.1  on 25.05.2007  . So  it is  not possible  to  count the  warranty period of the  air conditioner. The  non-production of the  vital documents  by the  complainant  creates adverse  inference U/s.114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. Although  it is  alleged in the  complaint petition  that the  complainant  has  repaired the  air conditioner on 29.05.2010, 16.04.2011, 11.05.2011 on payment, he has not  produced all the  cash memo  alleged  to  have been  issued by opp.party No.2  during  repairing. However, he has  produced the    photocopy  of   a  cash memo  which  shows that  opp.party No.2  has issued the  same on 29.05.2010 . On perusal of the   said  cash memo  it  can not be  said that the  said  cash memo relates  to the  repairing of the  air conditioner  purchased  by the  complainant  from  opp.party No.1. There is  also no reason as to why  the  complainant  did not  produce the  original  cash memo  issued by the opp.party No.2  during repairing. Those  documents  are also vital documents to decide  the issues  raised by the  complainant. However on perusal of the  case record it  transpires that  on 21.05.2012  this Forum had  directed the opp.parties to repair  the  air conditioner immediately in Misc Case No. 22 of 2012 . The opp.party    No.3 has filed a  memo  of  compliance of  such order  on 23.07.2012. On perusal of the  said  memo and  photocopy of the  job sheet , it  is clear that the air conditioner of the  complainant  was repaired by  opp.party No.2  on 07.06.2012 . It is  further  clear   from  those documents  that the  complainant   was  fully  satisfied with the  repairs carried out  by the opp.party No.1  and  he  was fully satisfied  with  the repairing  work and   put his  signature.

          So from the  materials on record it is  clear that the opp.party No.3  has  promptly  carried out  the order  passed by this Forum . There is  no allegation  by the complainant  that  the  defect arose  in the air conditioner  after 07.06.2012 .After scrutinizing  the  materials  on record it is  clear that the  complainant  failed  to prove  that the  air conditioner  purchased by  him suffered from  defects time  and  again. It is  also clear  from the  complaint petition  and the  materials  on  record that  opp.party No.3   promptly  carried out  the  repairing work  on the  air conditioner of the  complainant. So there is  no deficiency in service at all by opp.party No.1,2 & 3.

7.       Hence  order :-

: O R D E R :

          The case be and  the same is dismissed exparte against opp.party No.1 & 2 and on  contest  against opp.party No.3.