Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/63

Meenu Kalyan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bakhtawar Mall Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar, Advocate

06 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                                Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2020

                                                Date of institution: 07.10.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 06.08.2021

 

Meenu Kalyan aged about 36 years, wife of Sh. Ravi Kalyan, resident of House No.21, Sun City-1, Ropar, Tehsil and District Ropar, now resident of House No.704/1, Meeran Bai Chowk, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Bakhtawar Mall Electronics, Main Bazar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar, (through its proprietor)
2. Carrier Midea India Private Limited, Plot No.51, Pearl Tower, Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana, 122001, Haryana (through its Managing Director)  

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:     Sh. Mohit Dhupar, Adv. counsel for complainant

None for the O.Ps 

               

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose off the above said complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that the complainant had purchased one Carrier Split Air Conditioner for his personal use on 2.9.2019 by paying an amount to the tune of Rs.34502/- vide invoice No.1280 from OP1. He was also given one year warranty on the device and five years warranty on compressor. It is further averred that the CC purchased the said Air Conditioner by getting it financed and was regularly paying the installments. It is alleged that in August 2020, the AC purchased by the CC started giving trouble and used to turn off automatically and even stopped giving cooling. The CC immediately approached the OP1 and apprised him with the problem developed in the AC. The OP1 told the CC that the mechanic will visit the house of the CC and the problem will be rectified in a short span. It is alleged that nobody visited or rectified the problem in the AC of the CC. CC contacted the customer care number and after that one mechanic visited the house of the CC but the problem in the AC could not be rectified. Despite several visits of the mechanic the problem remained as it was. It is alleged that one of the mechanics orally declared that there is a manufacturing defect in the AC and the same cannot be rectified. CC asked the OP1 to refund his money but of no use.

Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the following reliefs:-

1. That O.Ps. be asked to replace the defective AC with the brand new one and further refund the paid amount along with interest @ 18% per annum with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

The complaint of the CC is properly verified and signed.

2. In reply OP1 has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that the CC has got no cause of action, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the CC has not approached the Commission with clean hands. On merits, the allegations of the CC are denied. It is alleged that the guarantee as alleged by the CC, was given by the OP2 and not by the OP1. It is further alleged that OP1 never misbehaved with the CC rather the CC afterwards purchased one refrigerator from OP1. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part the OP No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. The OP2 in reply has also raised a number of legal objections. It is averred that the CC is trying to take the benefit of his own wrong initiative. It is further in the reply that the sole motive of the CC is that OPs should kneel down before the CC for his illegal demand. However, it is admitted in the reply that CC again called up for the help on the help line number of the answering OP and informed that the AC was not giving a proper cooling. It is further averred that on 10.9.2020, a technician visited the house of the CC and informed, that the PCB of the said AC is defective but despite the AC being out of guarantee even on the very day the PCB was “replaced free of cost” by the technician. The service report dated 10.09.2020 is annexed herewith. It is further alleged that after 10.9.2020, there was no complaint from the CC. It is further alleged that the CC has got no cause of action to file the present complaint but he has filed the present complaint to put undue pressure on the answering OP. OP2 has mentioned a number judgments of various courts in its reply. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  The version of the OP2 is duly supported by an affidavit of one Sh. Arpita Doaroh.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to & Ex.C4. On the other hand, the OP. No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A along with copy of bill Ex.OP1/VB.  The OP has not filed any evidence despite imposing of cost even.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, carefully and minutely.
5. Admittedly, the CC purchased one Carrier 1.5 ton Air Conditioner (split AC) from the OP1 vide invoice dated 02.9.2019 by paying an amount to the tune of Rs.34,502/- to OP1. Besides, filing the call details and the bill, CC has not furnished any other evidence in support of his complaint. On the other hand, the OPs have not submitted any cogent evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. It is writ-large on the file that the Air Conditioner of the CC developed some defect and stopped cooling and the OP1 and OP2 were duly contacted by him for the redressal of his grievance. It is also admitted that the CC had purchased this AC from OP1 by paying an amount of Rs.34502/- vide invoice No.1280. There are specific allegations of the CC that in August 2020, the AC purchased from OP1 and manufactured by OP2 started giving trouble and stopped giving cooling. However, on the other hand, the OP2 has specifically alleged that the mechanic of the OP2 time and again visited the house of the CC and removed the defect by changing the PCB of the AC. On 10.9.2020 and after that there was no complaint from the CC pertaining to the AC in question. Surprisingly, the CC has not annexed the report of any expert or any mechanic that after the replacement of the PCB whether the AC purchased by the CC still remained defective or not. Even, on the other hand, the OPs has not submitted any single piece of evidence in support of their respective version. Even no job card is produced by the OPs. Even, both the OPs have failed to submit the affidavit of the concerned mechanic, who visited the house of the CC and conducted the repair of the AC.
7. In the absence of any cogent, reliance or confidence inspiring evidence from the side of the OPs, we are of the view that it is possible that the grievance of the CC was not redressed by the OPs to his satisfaction. Accordingly, we allow the complaint partly and order that the OPs will send their respective mechanic and ensure the repair of  the AC in question to the best satisfaction of the CC. It is further ordered that the OPs will not charge a single penny from the CC in case any major part or any part of the AC is changed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
8.  

August 08, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

•  

                                               

 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

•