Haryana

Sirsa

CC/16/101

Jai Bharat Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anand Udyog - Opp.Party(s)

Vishnu Bhagwan

13 Oct 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/101
 
1. Jai Bharat Lal
MITC Colony Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Anand Udyog
Old Stadium Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sh S.B Lohia PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Ranbir Singh MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: JN Monga/Sandeep Gaba, Advocate
Dated : 13 Oct 2016
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.         

  

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.101 of 2016                                                                          

                                                              Date of Institution         :    25.4.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    13.10.2016

 

Jai Bharat Lal Garg, aged 50 years son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of 6, MITC Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                                                             ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Anand Udyog, Janta Bhawan Road, Opp. Old Stadium, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. M/s Super Service, Friends Colony, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Manager/ In-charge.

3. Voltas Limited, A-42, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110 044, through its Manager.

                                                                        ...…Opposite parties.

         

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

                     SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh.Vishnu Bhagwan,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.J.N.Monga, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

                   Sh.Sandeep Gaba, Advocate for the opposite parties no.2 & 3.

 

          ORDER

                    

          Case of complainant is that he purchased a voltas air conditioner from op no.1 on 17.6.2011 vide bill No.4823 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and he was given 1+5 years warranty against all manufacturing defects in the said air conditioner. In the month of July, 2014, the same developed defect and stopped cooling upon which he reported the defect to op no.1 who got checked the same from op no.2. Op no.2 made some repairs and assured that now in future it will work properly. However, again it developed defect and complainant lodged complaint on 4.7.2015 with regard to no proper cooling and noise in compressor. On 8.7.2015, he received a telephonic call from one Sandeep an employee of op no.2 who asked him that if complainant deposits Rs.3100/- then he will check the air conditioner and if defect in capacitor is found, then Rs.3100/- will be charged and if no defect in capacitor is found, then the cost of capacitor will be refunded to him. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2450/- was got deposited from complainant by op no.2 and cost of capacitor amounting to Rs.650/- was deleted and the said amount was paid vide bill No.09 dated 8.7.2015. On 14.7.2016, op no.2 got removed the air conditioner from the premises and took the same to its workshop and stated that matter will be reported to the company. On 15.7.2015, the op no.2 got installed the air conditioner at his premises and stated that defect has been removed, but the same did not work and thereafter, the complainant made several calls to the representatives of company but did not get any response or reply. The complainant also approached ops No.1 & 2 and apprised them about the above said defect in the air conditioner and requested for removal of defect, but they did not pay any heed. There is manufacturing defect in the air conditioner, therefore, the complainant is entitled to replacement of the air conditioner with a new one or refund of its price and he is also entitled to refund of Rs.2450/- charged by op no.2 towards repair of the air conditioner besides compensation etc. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties replied in their written statement that warranty for five years was only for compressor. The normal wear and tear of the air conditioner during its operation by the complainant is not at all covered under warranty and the complainant has to bear the expenses of the same. As and when the complainant approached the answering op no.2 in connection with complaint, his complaints were properly attended and he has wrongly insisted for replacement of the air conditioner for which he was not at all entitled and there is no manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. OP no.1 in separate written statement also asserted that assertions that complainant approached op no.1 for repair or replacement are false and baseless.

3.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Gulati Ex.R1, operation manual Ex.R2 and affidavit of Sh. Baldev Anand, proprietor of op no.1 as Ex.R3.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                The air conditioner was having warranty of five years of its compressor and the complainant is alleging problem of cooling in the air conditioner and noise in the compressor during warranty period as the said defect pertain to the compressor which is the main part of the air conditioner. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.2450/- for filling of gas, labour charges and transportation charges as is evident from receipt dated 8.7.2015 but complainant again faced the same problem in the air conditioner within short period of seven days. On 14.7.2015, the air conditioner was got removed from the house of complainant and on 15.7.2015 it was installed in his house with the assurance that defect has been removed but complainant is alleging that defect is still persisting in the air conditioner. The air conditioner has been got repaired for three times by the ops but defect has not been removed. The opposite parties have not placed on file any expert report to prove that air conditioner is not having any manufacturing defect or that defect alleged by the complainant has been removed after repairs.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.20,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.2450/- charged by them on account of repair of the air conditioner vide receipt Ex.C5. However, the ops are entitled to get received the air conditioner in question from the complainant on payment of above said amount. This order should be complied by all the ops jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25.4.2016 till actual realization. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated:13.10.2016.                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sh S.B Lohia]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ranbir Singh]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.