2013(1) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 13
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
S.B. MHASE AND NARENDRA KAWDE, JJ.
Kamaldeep Singh Vs. The Chief, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
First Appeal No. 778 of 2012
6th July, 2012
Petitioner Counsel: Nanda K. Singh
Consumer Protection Act (1986), S.2 - Deficiency in service - Alleged after expiry of warranty period - Held, unless there is a contractual obligation deficiency in service cannot be attributed to opponent especially when warranty or guarantee period is expired. (Para 3)
JUDGMENT
-Mr. S. B. Mhase, Hon'ble President :- Heard Adv. Nanda K. Singh on behalf of the Appellant/original Complainant.
2. Appellant/original Complainant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 11/5/2012 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra, Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.684 of 2010. We have perused the impugned order.
3. Air-conditioner in question was purchased in the year 2005. During the period of warranty it was repaired. Even thereafter repairing was carried out. When in the year 2009 it was found that the air-conditioner was not working, an engineer deputed by the Respondents/original Opponents found the air-conditioner was irreparable. Respondents/original Opponents reached to such a conclusion after they took the air-conditioner to their workshop and inspected it. Thus, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/original Opponents. Only because an engineer was deputed by the Respondents/original Opponents to inspect the air-conditioner that does not create any obligation (for repair) on the part of the Respondents/original Opponents. On the contrary such services are provided to maintain the reputation of the Company and so as to render help to the consumers. Unless there is a contractual obligation, deficiency in service cannot be attributed to any of the Respondents/original Opponents especially when warranty or guarantee period had expired. We find that the complaint has been rightly considered and dismissed by the District Forum. No interference is called for in the order passed by the District Forum. We do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal stands rejected in limine.