BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.366 of 2019
Date of Instt. 30.08.2019
Date of Decision:10.12.2024
S. Jaswant Singh aged 41 years son of S. Kishan Singh resident of Village Uppal Khalsa, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Usha International Limited, Plot No.15, Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001.
2. Usha International Limited, Lally Niwas, G. T. Road, Jalandhar City-144001
3. Universal Electronics, Post Office Road, Jalandhar-144040.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: None for the Parties.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased one water cooler of company of the OP No.1 having model SS 150/150 vide Bill No.5883 on 12.05.2017 for Rs.91,500/- from the dealer of the OP No.1 i.e. OP No.3 for installation at Gurudwara Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, Village Uppal Khalsa, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar for utilization of common purpose. Since the date of purchase, the complainant has continuously facing the troubles due to some manufacturing defects in the cooling unit/coil of the said water cooler. The matter was reported to the OP No.3 many a time. Even the complainant also reported their complaint online. The details of few complaints made online are dated 04.05.2018 against job no.18050300494, dated 15.08.2018 against job No.1808150031 and dated 10.05.2019 against job no.1904261057. But so far the OP No.3 has failed to rectify the defect in the said water cooler. Every time, the OP No.3 and its service engineers demanded the cost for replacement of cooling unit illegally and unjustifiable. Due to this act of the OP No.3, the public and devotees at large had suffered due to non-cooling of water in the said water cooler. The complainant alongwith all visiting devotes had suffered a lot due to non-cooperative attitude of the service providers of OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay total amount of the claim i.e. Rs.91,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hand and has suppressed the true and material facts. It is further averred that there is no cause of action against the answering OPs. There is no manufacturing defect. On merits, it is admitted that the equipment was purchased on 12.05.2017 by the complainant and the product was valid till 11.05.2018. The factum with regard to lodging the complaint by the complainant is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.3. It is further averred that the complaint has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP because the allegations referred in the complaint under reply and do not relate in any manner with the business and working of answering OP No.1. It is further averred that from the bare reading of the complaint and of the documents attached with the complaint, it is very much clear that the entire dispute in question referred in the complaint is with the OP No.1 who have manufactured and supplied the defective water cooler to the complainant and even the OP No.3 at his own expenses had sent the same to the OP No.1 for its repair. On merits, the factum with regard to selling of the water cooler to the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant filed a complaint regarding manufacturing defect in the cooling unit/coil of the said water cooler, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have gone through the contents of the file very minutely.
7. It is admitted and not disputed that the complainant had purchased one water cooler from OP No.3 for Rs.91,500/- on 12.05.2017. The bill/retail invoice has been proved on record Ex.C-2. The complainant has alleged that since the date of purchase, the complainant has been facing the trouble due to some manufacturing defect in the cooling unit and the matter was reported to the OP No.3, but the OPs have failed to rectify the defect.
8. The contention of the OPs is that there was no manufacturing defect in the water cooler. The water cooler was having validity period till 11.05.2018 and till 11.05.2018 whenever the complaint was received the same was rectified. Another complaint was received on 10.05.2019, which was beyond the period of validity and the complainant was informed about the fact that the product is not within warranty period. He was informed that the Tank of the water cooler was to be changed due to water leakage and this defect can be removed only on the payment of the tank charges, but the complainant refused.
9. The complainant has produced on record the emails and the correspondence between the complainant and the OP. Perusal of Ex.C-3, which is consisting of 7 pages show that the complaint was made on May 17, 2019 that the water cooler is not working properly and the service engineer of the OP has told the complainant to replace the same as the tank is leaking. Similarly, other emails are also of 17.05.2019 and 20.05.2019. The complainant has not produced on record any warranty card to show that the product was within warranty period. He has also not proved on record any correspondence to show that till 11.05.2018 or from 11.05.2018 to 10.05.2019, he has made any complaint. The OP has produced on record the email Ex.OP-1 showing that the produced was repaired and job sheet was duly signed by the customer. Ex.OP-2 shows that the call was attended on 10.05.2018 and the repair was also made on 10.05.2018 duly signed by Sukhdeep Singh. This document has not been rebutted by the complainant and it has not been alleged that this document was never signed by Sukhdeep Singh or Sukhdeep Singh was not their representative. None has come present on behalf of the complainant to rebut this document or to show the warranty card to prove that the product was within warranty and there was manufacturing defect in the unit. So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
10.12.2024 Member Member President
