Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/40/2017

Jagjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajwa Aircon Service and other - Opp.Party(s)

Sh T S Dhiman

06 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.40 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 14.06.2017                                     

                                                    Date of decision    : 06.06.2018

Jagjeet Kaur aged about 47 years, wife of Amrik Singh resident of Harnam Nagar, Ward No.20, Near Rauza Shareef, Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Bajwa Aircon Service, Engineers and Contractors, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, 140406, through its Proprietor.
2. Sharp Air Conditioner Company Plot No.A-9, IIIrd Floor, BITS, Tower Sector-125, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                       

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.T.S.Dhiman, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                      Sh. Sapandeep Singh, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.

                      Sh. M.K.Garg, Adv.Cl for OP No.2.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Jagjeet Kaur aged about 47 years, wife of Amrik Singh resident of Harnam Nagar, Ward No.20, Near Rauza Shareef, Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a Sharp 1.5 Ton(Split) Air Conditioner inbuilt Inverter with V-Guard Voltage Stabilizer from OP No.1, vide bill No.1405 dated 11.05.2013 and paid an amount of Rs.53,500/- to OP No.1. At the time of purchase of the said Air Conditioner( herein after referred as 'AC'), OP No.1 assured the complainant that the said AC is best class AC and if any defect occurs within five year from the date of purchase of the same, the company will replace the same with new one as the guarantee period of the AC is five years. After the purchase of the said AC, the complainant found that the working of the AC is not good and its cooling is not proper and there are so many defects in the inverter functions of the AC. The compressor of the AC stopped to work after short time. The complainant lodged the complaint vide complaint No.171726 dated 26.09.2016 on toll free No.18004254322 of the company. Thereafter, the employees of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and inspected the AC and repaired the same but working of the AC remained the same. Thereafter on 03.05.2017, the complainant again lodged complaint vide No.2466080 but none from the side of OPs visited the house of the complainant till date for repair or replacement of the same. The act and conduct of the OPs is clear cut deficiency in service on their part. The complainant also served a legal notice to the OPs but all in vain. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the said AC with new one and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment as well as financial loss.
3.           The complaint is contested by the OPs. In reply to complaint, OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file present complaint; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and this complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that from the date of purchase and its installation, the said AC is working properly and no complaint regarding its non-functioning was ever made to OP No.1 by the complainant. There is no defect in the inverter function of the AC and its compressor is also functioning properly and is providing proper cooling as per company standards/specifications.  It is further stated that OP No.1 is only the authorized reseller of the Sharp Air Condition Company and his business is only to sell the products of the Company. After sale service, repair and other services regarding warranty of the product is provided by the company only as per warranty policy, hence OP No.1 has nothing to do with the same and it is not bound to replace the said AC. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           In reply to complaint OP No.2 stated that the company had never given any assurance to the complainant to change the said AC with new one if any defect occurred in the same. The company gave only the warranty of Compressor for 5 years and other parts of AC for 1 year. It is further stated that on 26.09.2016 when the employees of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the AC, they did not find any defect in the AC.  It is further stated that the complainant did not disclose all the facts to this Forum as on 21.05.2016, when the complainant first time lodged the complaint with OP No.2, then OP No.2 replaced the Compressor with new one after checking the said AC.  Thereafter in the month of June 2016, the complainant again lodged a complaint about the AC and OP No.2 changed the whole old outdoor unit with new one. It is further stated that on the complaint lodged by complainant on 03.05.2017 vide complaint No.2466080, the employees of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and after checking the AC they found that there is no fault in the AC.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, bill dated 11.05.2013 Ex. C-2, legal notice dated 12.05.2017 Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 & C-5 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal, OP No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ram Singh, Proprietor,  Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Singh, Call Coordinator, as Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.
6. The Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the Air Conditioner carried warranty of five years. Air Conditioner first went out of order during September 2016 and a complaint was lodged with the OPs, whose employees visited the house of the complainant and repaired the Air Conditioner by changing the defective parts. But again when the Air Conditioner did not work well, the complainant lodged a complaint again with the OPs, but this time nobody turned up to repair the Air Conditioner. The Ld. counsel further prayed for acceptance of complaint and directing the OPs to repair/replace the Air Conditioner besides awarding adequate compensation to the complainant.
7. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 pleaded that OP No.1 is only the sale outlet of the sharp company and has nothing to do with the repair/replacement of the Air Conditioner.
8. Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 argued that the Air Conditioner was repaired by changing the compressor and its outdoor unit during September 2016. Even on another date when complained for repair of Air Conditioner, the employees checked the Air conditioner, which was working well and there was no defect. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. We have gone through the written arguments, evidence produced, pleadings and oral arguments etc and are of the opinion that OPs have committed deficiency in service. OP No.1, being the sale outlet of the Sharp Company, was responsible to guide the complainant to get the air conditioner checked up from the authorized service centre of the company and accordingly get it repaired/replaced. But it did not do so. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct OP No.1 and 2 to get the air conditioner checked up thoroughly from the authorized service centre of the Sharp Company and same be repaired/rectified as the Air Conditioner carried the warranty when it got defective. Further, it is directed that any defective part covered under warranty be replaced free of cost and if any part of the AC is not covered under the warranty, the OPs are at liberty to charge the cost of the same from the complainant as none of the parties could place on record terms and conditions of the Air Conditioner.  The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment together with litigation charges. The order be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order otherwise OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9 % p.a. till its realization.
10. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 31.05.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:-06.06.2018