The Adminsitrative Manager Haier Appliances (India) Pvt Ltd V/S Vishwanath S/o Late R.Nagaraj Aged about 25 Years - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/10/1941

Vishwanath S/o Late R.Nagaraj Aged about 25 Years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Adminsitrative Manager Haier Appliances (India) Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.V.N.R. & Associates

06 Sep 2010

ORDER

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624
No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/1941

Vishwanath S/o Late R.Nagaraj Aged about 25 Years						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Adminsitrative Manager Haier Appliances (India) Pvt Ltd 2. The Branch Manager Haier Appliances ( India ) Pvt Ltd						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Heard the counsel for the complainant regarding admission. It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased a TV on 31/03/2006 from a dealer. Thereafter, during July 2010 he found some defects in the T.V has handed it over to the Service Provider for its repair but he has not returned the TV. Therefore, he is asking for compensation with interest. Complaint is presented against two Ops. Admittedly, they represented the manufacturing unit. Complainant has no grievance against manufacturer. The grievance of the complainant is against Service Provider in not returning TV after repair. But he has not made Service Provider as party. Counsel for the complainant submits that complainant is not aware of the address of the Service Provider to whom the TV was given for repair therefore has made the manufacturer as Op. Nowhere, we find any grievance of the complainant against manufacturer and that too after more than 4 years. Complainant if at all aggrieved is aggrieved against omission or deficiency of the Service Provider who is not made as party. Hence, complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed at the stage of admission.

Heard the counsel for the complainant regarding admission. It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased a TV on 31/03/2006 from a dealer. Thereafter, during July 2010 he found some defects in the T.V has handed it over to the Service Provider for its repair but he has not returned the TV. Therefore, he is asking for compensation with interest. Complaint is presented against two Ops. Admittedly, they represented the manufacturing unit. Complainant has no grievance against manufacturer. The grievance of the complainant is against Service Provider in not returning TV after repair. But he has not made Service Provider as party. Counsel for the complainant submits that complainant is not aware of the address of the Service Provider to whom the TV was given for repair therefore has made the manufacturer as Op. Nowhere, we find any grievance of the complainant against manufacturer and that too after more than 4 years. Complainant if at all aggrieved is aggrieved against omission or deficiency of the Service Provider who is not made as party. Hence, complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed at the stage of admission.

......................Anita Shivakumar. K
......................Ganganarsaiah
......................Sri D.Krishnappa