DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 273 of 14.7.2016
Decided on: 13.12.2017
Dr.Parminder Pal Singh S/o Sh.Mehar Singh, aged 35 years R/o 58-C, Ranjit Nagar, Bhadson Road, Patiala 147001.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Amar Enterprises through its Prop. Tripuri Town, Patiala Opp. Gurudwara Kashmirian.
2. Richie Electronics through its Prop. Service Centre Daikin India 4, Raghbir Colony, Near PNB Bank Chowk, Model Town, Patiala , Punjab 147001.
3. Daikin India through its Managing Director/Head Office F-25/2 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110020.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rajiv Lohatbaddi,Adv.counsel for complainant.
Opposite parties No.1&2 ex-parte.
Smt.Mandeep Kaur,Adv.counsel for OP No.3.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
Dr. Parminder Pal, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund Rs.46,000/-, the cost of A.C. alongwith interest @18% from the date of purchase;
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and
- To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief , the case of the complainant is that he purchased the split A.C. of the capacity of 1.5 ton, make Daikin, from Op no.1 vide cash memo No.4360 for an amount of Rs.46000/-on 19.5.2016.It is stated that since from the date of its installation it has not been working properly as within one and half month of its purchase it abruptly stopped working on 4.7.2016. A complaint was lodged with OP no.2 i.e. the service centre vide complaint No.QJU160704370. Defective parts of the AC in question were replaced on 13.7.2016 by the representative of OP no.2 but the problem in the A.C. was not solved. It was still not in working condition. Another complaint No.QJU160720270 was lodged by the complainant on 14.7.2016 but to no effect.As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the problem amounted to deficiency in service on their part . Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice OPs No.1&2 failed to come present despite service and were accordingly proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP no.3 appeared and filed the written version.
In the written version filed by OP no.3 preliminary objections have been taken interalia that the complaint against it does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits it is admitted that the complainant had purchased one split A.C unit 1.5 ton manufactured by it through OP no.1 for Rs.43000/- and was installed at the premises of the complainant and was working fine to the satisfaction of the complainant. On the first complaint registered by the complainant on 4.7.2016, a technician was appointed to look into the issue. Upon checking it was found that Printed Circuit Board (PCB) was not working properly. The main reason for the said cause was improper supply of electricity or fluctuation of electricity. However, the technician of OP no.3 as a goodwill gesture, replaced the PCB with a new one on 13.7.2016. On the second complaint dated 14.7.2016, the technician again checked the AC unit but did not find any shortcoming in the AC. After having a conversation with technician, the complainant started asking for other PCB which was replaced with the new PCB on 21.7.2016 as per terms and conditions and AC was working properly. There was no manufacturing defect in the subjected AC . The complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.3. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Dr.Shabdeep Kaur alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for Op no.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rupesh Jain, Company Secretary alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one split A.C. from OP no.1 on 19.5.2016.After one and a half month of the said purchase, the A.C. stopped working and the complainant lodged a complaint with Op no.2 on 3.7.2016.The OP replaced the defective part of the A.C.But the problem in the A.C. could not be solved. Again the complainant lodged a complaint with OP no.2 on 14.7.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C6. Whereas OP no.3 has submitted that its technician replaced the defective part of the A.C. on 13.7.2016.Again on 21.7.2016, its technician replaced the PCB of the indoor and outdoor unit of the split A.C. with a new one and the A.C.started working. Today during the course of arguments, the ld.counsel for the complainant argued that the A.C. in question is still not in working condition. The problem occurred in the A.C. during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.Moreover, failure on the part of OPs No.1&2 to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs No.2&3 to rectify the problem in the A.C. either by repairing or replacing the defective part/Parts without charging any amount from the complainant and if that is not possible to replace the same with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.46,000/- to the complainant.The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:13.12.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
