DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.202 of 18.5.2007<br /> Decided on: 6.2.2008<br /> <br /> J.L.Banga son of Sh.Jagan Nath Banga r/o 345/9, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. The Director Voltas Limited, Voltas House ‘A’ Block, Dr. Babasahed<br /> Abedkar Road, Chinchopokli, Mumbai-4000033.<br /> 2. Branch Manager, Voltas Limited, SCO-201, 202, 203, Sector 34-A,<br /> Chandigarh.<br /> 3. Sh.Rajesh Mittal Snow Cool Refrigeration & Electrical 484/4, Telian <br /> Street, Nabha Gate, Patiala. <br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Arun Attril, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.A.K.Gupta, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, J.L.Banga has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant purchased one Volta Premium Air Conditioner having Sr.No.4010704/U/05D/132031 from opposite party No.3 vide cash Memo No.2169 dated 23.5.2005 at Pataiala. Opposite party No.3 is the dealer of opposite parties No.1&2.The opposite parties No.1&2 are the manufacturer of the above said voltas air conditionder.That the above said air conditioner did not work even for a day and in this regard the opposite party No.3 was immediately informed by the complainant who intern sent his engineer but the said A.C. did not work/remained non-operational. The complainant made requests continuous every day for a week for the replacement of the above said defective Voltas Air Conditioner and ultimately complainant packed the above said air conditioner purchased from the opposite party No.3 and made a written representation through U.P.C. to the opposite parties No.1to3 but with no effect till today. That the opposite parties neither got the above said A.C.repaired nor replaced till today in spite of oral requests and representation by the complainant. That the opposite are deficient in service. That the complainant has suffered pecuniary, physically and mentally and thus entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with Rs.17000/- cost of the above said air conditioner. The complainant is consumer under the Act. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant purchased one Voltas premium air conditioner having Sr No. Sr.No.4010704/U/05D/132031 from opposite parties, but it is wrong that the complainant has made the payment of the same in cash, the complainant asked the opposite parties to make the payment lateron, but failed to make the payment and the same is still pending and has not been paid. It is wrong that the air conditioner purchased from the opposite parties was not working properly. It was workingproperlybut the complainant failed to handle the same properly and there was no defect in it, however, on receipt of complaint from the complainant the engineer from the opposite parties attended the complaint and found that there was no defect in the air conditioner, but it was due to the wrong handling of the complainant as he failed to under stand its functioning and he was made known about this by the engineer also and the complainant admitted this fact and the mishandling of the complainant to the air conditioner was removed. No request was ever made nor can be made since the air conditioner purchased from the opposite parties by the complainant was in full working condition and there was no defect in it, the complainant has filed the false case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. No loss has been caused to the complainant by any of the act of the opposite parties. It is wrong that the complainant is entitled to damages with Rs.17000/- the cost of the above said airconditioner.Moreover, the cost of the air conditioner is still due against the complainant. It is the opposite parties who are entitled to special costs for their indulging into false litigations indulged by the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The pleas that complaint is not maintainable and that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties have also been taken and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence hisaffidavit,Ex.CW1/A, copy of cash bill,Ex.C1,copy of notice dated 31.5.2007,Ex.C2 and copes of UPC receipts,Exs.C3 to C5.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Balak Ram Dhiman.<br /> 6. The complainant has filed written arguments whereas the opposite parties did not file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. The case of the complainant is that he purchased one voltas premium air conditioner from opposite party No.3 vide cash memo No.2169 dated 23.5.2005,Ex.C1, for Rs.17,000/-.It is also the case of the complainant that the air conditioner did not work even for a day and the opposite party No.3 was informed who sent his engineer but the air conditioner did not work and remained non operational. It is also the case of the complainant that the said engineer admitted the manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. It is also the case of the complainant that the defective air conditioner was ultimately packed and that the opposite parties have not replaced the air conditioner inspite of oral requests and representations.<br /> 8. The case of the opposite parties is that the air conditioner was working properly but the complainant failed to handle the same properly and there was no defect in it. It is also the case of the opposite parties that on receipt of complaint from the complainant the engineer from the opposite parties attended the complaint and found that there was no defect in the air conditioner but it was due to the wrong handling of the complainant as he failed to understand its functioning and he was made to known about this by the engineer also. The mishandling of the complainant to the air conditioner was remained.<br /> 9. The perusal of the cash memo,Ex.C1,shows that Voltas Premium Air conditioner was purchased by the complainant on 23.5.2005 for Rs.17000/- from the opposite parties. The present complaint was filed on 18.5.2007 i.e. almost after two years. The complainant has not filed any document on the record to show that the air conditioner has any manufacturing defect or that the defect was caused during the warranty period. The complainant has not placed the warranty card if any on the record. So it cannot be presumed that the complaint has been filed within the warranty period. The case of the complainant s that the air conditioner did not work even for a day and that it is lying packed. It is not believable that a person who has purchased air conditioner for Rs.17000/-would pack the same within few days of its purchase and wait for two years to file the complaint for its replacement. Thus it is a concocted story fabricated by the complainant to support his false case. As has been discussed above there is no document on the record to prove that the air conditioner purchased from the opposite party No.3 has any manufacturing defect. Nor there is any document on the record to prove that the complaint has been filed within the warranty period.<br /> 10. In the result we hold that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint merit dismissal being without any merit and is dismissed accordingly. However, under the circumstances parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:6.2.2008<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br />