Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/60/2016

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajwa Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh R K Dhiman

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 60 of 2016

                                           Date of institution : 02.06.2016                          

                                          Date of decision    : 30.11.2016

Kuldeep Singh aged about 45 years son of Late Sh. Rattan Singh R/o # 40, Modern Valley-2, Attewali, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Bajwa Electronics, Opposite New Service Station (Petrolpump) Bassi Road, Sirhind Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its proprietor.
2. The Chief Manager, Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019.

 …..Opposite Parties

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

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

 

Present :  Sh.R.K. Dhiman, Adv. counsel for the complainant.                      Sh. Sapandeep Singh, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

 ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Kuldeep Singh aged about 45 years son of Late Sh. Rattan Singh R/o # 40, Modern Valley-2, Attewali, Sirhind, 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 one Lloyd 1 Ton Split Air Conditioner model No. LS13A5LN with Stabilizer worth Rs.30,000/- from OP No.1, vide cash bill No.12077 dated 11.06.2015.  In the month of August 2015 the said Air Conditioner became out of order as it started giving problem of non-functioning of its Compressor and not giving the proper cooling within the warranty period. The complainant approached OP No.1 and lodged complaint regarding the defective Air Conditioner. OP No.1 assured that the same would be repaired and sent two workers for checking the said Air Conditioner, who tried to adjust the functioning of the Air Conditioner but they could not remove the defect of compressor of the AC. After few days the complainant again visited OP No.1 at his showroom where OP No.1 again assured to reset the Air Conditioner and also assured that the whole unit would be replaced if needed. But OP No.1 did not come to see the existing problem in the said Air Conditioner. The complainant many times requested OP No.1 to replace the defective Air Conditioner but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter in winter season, said Air Conditioner remained off and when complainant started the same in April 2016, the same problem occurred again. Thereafter on 20.04.2016 and 21.04.2016 the complainant again requested to OP No.1 to repair or replace the defective Air Conditioner but no one visit the premises of the complainant to rectify the defective air conditioner. The complainant also made complaints to the toll free No.1800-1377-781 of the company and the company registered the complaints, vide request No.LEEL210416335369 dated 21.04.2016 and No.LEEL220416340181 dated 22.04.2016. Thereafter on 25.04.2016, two employees of the company visited the premises of the complainant and found defect in the compressor of A.C. and in its cooling function. They repaired the said AC after filling the gas in the unit but the same remained functional only for two days. The problems of non functioning of compressor and cooling problem still exists in the defective Air Conditioner.  The complainant again requested OP No.1 and made complaints to the customer care of the company and also served legal notice upon them but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.32,500/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental and physical harassment and litigation costs.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs. OP No.1 in its written reply 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; the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that from the date of purchase and its installation, the said Air Conditioner is working properly  and its compressor is also functioning properly and is providing proper cooling as per company standards/specification. No complaint regarding its non-functioning was ever made to OP No.1 by the complainant.  The complainant has concocted a false and fabricated story in order to harm and harass OP No.1. It is further stated that the complainant under the garb of legal process is pressurizing and blackmailing OP No.1 to replace the said Air Conditioner with Air Conditioner of Mitsubishi Company after the lapse of 11 months. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In reply to the complaint OP No.2 also raised similar preliminary objections as raised by OP No.1. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that from the date of purchase and its installation, the said Air Conditioner is working properly  and its compressor is also functioning properly and is providing proper cooling as per company standards/specification. No complaint regarding its non-functioning was ever made to OP No.2 by the complainant.  The complainant has concocted a false and fabricated story in order to harm and harass OP No.2. 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, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of bill Ex. C-1, copy of request dated 21.04.2016 Ex. C-2, copy of service request dated 22.04.2016 Ex. C-3, legal notice Ex. C-4, postal receipts Ex. C-5, his affidavit Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ram Singh Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Gajender Bhargava Ex. OP-2, true copies of documents i.e. service record dated 21.04.2016 Ex. OP-3, service record dated 22.04.2016 Ex. OP-4, replies to legal notice Ex. OP-5 and OP-6, postal receipts Ex. OP-7 and OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6.                   Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased Lloyd 1 Ton Split AC, vide bill No.12077 on 11.06.2015 for Rs.30,000/-. In the month of August 2015, it started giving problem of non-functioning. A complaint was lodged with OP No.1 but the technician could not remove the defect. After few days, again complaint was lodged. Then again when AC was restarted in April 2016, the same problem occurred again. In April 2016, complaint was lodged twice but nobody from OPs came to rectify the defective AC. Then complaint was lodged on the company's toll free number. After that two employees visited the premises and repaired the AC after filling the gas but the same remained functional only for two days.  Now, still there is problem in the functioning of the compressor and cooling problem.  OPs were also served legal notice but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Ld. counsel thus pleaded for the acceptance of this complaint and penalizing the OPs with heavy cost.

7.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs. The Ld. counsel has filed identical written version on behalf of both the OPs. The Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the AC is working properly and its compressor is also providing proper cooling as per company standard/specification. Whenever the complaint was lodged, it was attended to promptly, which was evident from Ex. OP-3 and OP-4. The legal notice was duly replied and even during the pendency of the complaint, AC was properly inspected by the technician of the company and it was found that AC was fully chocked since it was used in a commercial establishment. It required service every two months instead of every six months. Otherwise, all parts were working properly. Thus, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant was blackmailing the OPs and pressuring for replacement of the AC with some other brand. The Ld. counsel thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submission of the Ld. counsel for the OPs, that there is no manufacturing defect. In the absence of any technical expert report regarding some manufacturing defect, the plea of the complainant for replacement of the AC cannot be accepted.

9.                   The complaint is disposed off with direction to the OPs to properly service and repair the AC without charging anything from the complainant to his full satisfaction. Order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 21.11.2016 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: 30.11.2016

 (Veena Chahal)                       Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                      Member