BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 182 of 2013
Date of Institution : 10.10.2013
Date of Decision : 2.9.2016.
Sh. Inder Bhan, Advocate, S/o Sh. Chetan Dass, H. No.13, Ram Nagar Colony, Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Videocon Industry Ltd., 14 KM Stone, Paithan Road, Chitegown, Distt. Aurangabad- 431105 (Maharashtra).
2. Sachdeva Electronics Main Bazar, Rania, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………..PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……. MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.S. Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kapil Dev, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one split air conditioner of Videocon company from opposite party no.2 against payment of Rs.19,500/- vide bill No.5286 dated 16.5.2010. The air conditioner did not give any service since beginning and there was gas leakage and compressor failure throughout and same is defective. After many repeated complaints, it has not been replaced and only compressor was replaced on 17.7.2013 and complainant had to spend Rs.2300/- for gas filling etc. and Rs.2000/- as carriage charges to service centre but inspite of that it again became defective. Thereafter, on many complaints, the A.C. was attended on 9.8.2013 but to no effect. The complainant got served a legal notice upon ops but even then no heed was paid except repair on 19.8.2013. However, after this repair, the A.C. started working but the compressor is creating intolerable noise, which is permanent nuisance to the complainant, his family and also to his neighbours. The ops are liable to replace the defective air conditioner and also to pay Rs.50000/- as damages for harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 contested the complaint by filing reply submitting therein that complaint is not maintainable. The said air conditioner has become out of warranty as the same was purchased on 16.5.2010. Moreover, the complainant has tampered the parts of said air conditioner by getting it repaired from an outside mechanic other than authorized service engineer of op no.1. So, the air conditioner has become out of warranty as per the terms and conditions of the company. A complaint regarding air conditioner had been received on 12.7.2013 vide complaint no.HIS1207130166 which had been resolved by replacing the compressor of air conditioner and an amount of Rs.2584/- had been charged from the complainant on account of gas filling and after the said repair no complaint has ever been received by op no.1. As per complainant himself, he got his A.C. repaired from a local mechanic and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered letter and acknowledgment was received. As such, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced affidavit of Sh. Jagat Narain a neighbour as Ex.C1, his own affidavit Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of receipt of Rs.2300 dated 17.7.2013 as Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and acknowledgment Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing opportunities.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and gone through the record of the case carefully.
6. The complainant is alleging defects in the air conditioner in question since the beginning of its purchase which was purchased on 16.5.2010 but has filed the present complaint only on 10.10.2013 i.e. after a period of almost three years and five months. The complainant has alleged that after his repeated requests, the compressor has only been replaced on 17.7.2013. From the pleadings of the parties, it is proved that best services were provided to the complainant as on 17.7.2013 compressor was replaced and then on 19.8.2013 also the air conditioner was repaired. There is nothing on record to prove that air conditioner is giving any type of problem. The op no.1 has taken a specific plea that now air conditioner has become out of warranty as per the terms and conditions of the company as complainant has got repaired the air conditioner from an outside mechanic. There is no other evidence on file that air conditioner is having any manufacturing defect.
7. Learned counsel for op no.1 has argued that present complaint is also time barred because complainant is alleging defect in the air conditioner since very beginning of its purchase but has filed present complaint only on 10.10.2013. We found substance in this contention of learned counsel for op no.1. In view of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In this case, cause of action has arisen to the complainant on 16.5.2010 i.e. from the date of purchase of A.C. but he has filed the present complaint on 10.10.2013 i.e. after a period of about three years and five months As such, the present complaint has been filed beyond the limitation period of two years.
8. So, in our view, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 2.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
