DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 519
Instituted on: 04.10.2017
Decided on: 02.05.2018
Parveet Garg aged 50 years S/O Late Sh. Mahavir Dayal C/o Garg Welding Store, Near Dashmesh Kanda, Mehlan Road, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Ashoka Light House, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. IFB Industries Ltd. 14, Taratolla Road, Kolkatta through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Ms.Anjana Jindal, Adv.
For OP No.2 : Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.
For OP NO.1. : Exparte.
Quorum: Sarita Garg, Presiding Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.
1. Shri Parveet Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 20.4.2017, the complainant approached the OP number 1 and purchased one air conditioner manufactured by OP number 2 for Rs.33,200/- vide bill number 14626 dated 20.4.2017. Further case of the complainant is that the air conditioner in question was having a warranty of five years for compressor and one year for other parts of the air conditioner. Further case of the complainant is that the air conditioner in question was suffering from the problem of drainage of water from the front of the air conditioner, as such, the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP number 1 and the OP number 1 sent the mechanic to set right the air conditioner, who tried to rectify the fault after cutting the appliance and due to this cutting, the cooling system of the air conditioner stopped working. Thereafter the complainant lodged so many complaints with the Ops, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the air conditioner in question or to refund the purchase price of the air conditioner in question along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such, Op number 1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the air conditioner was sold to the complainant after entire satisfaction of the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question from OP number 1, but the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is further stated that on 9.6.2017, OP number 2 received a request from the complainant and technician of the OP number 2 visited the house of the complainant and on inspection, the said technician found that the drainage pipe requires adjustment, as such the said adjustment was carried out and the air conditioner in question was working in proper condition and was also demonstrated to the complainant. It has been denied that any cutting was carried out in the appliance in question. However, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit closed evidence. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit along with Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/3 and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the air conditioner in question for Rs.30,700/- by the complainant. Ex.C-2 is the copy of warranty card, which clearly shows that it has a comprehensive warranty of 12 months. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question on 20.4.2017, but the fact remains that the air conditioner in question developed defects of coming of water from the front portion of the air conditioner, as such, the complainant lodged the complaint with the Ops, who deputed engineer/technician to remove the defects in the air conditioner, but the technician of the OP number 2 cut the air conditioner from the lower side to drainage the waste water. But, the case of the complainant is that after cutting the lower part of the body of the air conditioner, the cooling became low than the actual one and the Ops failed to set right the cooling despite repeated requests. It is on the record that the air conditioner in question developed defects in the very short span of its purchase and even during the warranty period and the complainant even filed the complaint before this Forum during the warranty period. In the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice by supplying the complainant a defective air conditioner. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserves the replacement of the air conditioner with a new one or in the alternative refund of the amount so spent by him on the purchase of the air conditioner in question.
7. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to replace the air conditioner in question with a new one. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
May 2, 2018.
(Sarita Garg)
Presiding Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
