Punjab

Sangrur

CC/417/2016

Sonu Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Light House - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Kumar Bhalla

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                         

                                                Complaint No.  417

                                                Instituted on:    09.06.2016

                                                Decided on:       25.10.2016

 

Sonu Jindal son of Suresh Kumar Jindal, resident of Jindal House, Phirni Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Bharat Light House, Prem Basti, Gali No.6, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Amit Bhalla, Adv.

For OP                     :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sonu Jindal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that in the month of May, 2016 the complainant purchased one 1.5 ton split air conditioner of Lloyd company bearing model number LS-19A3X for Rs.24,000/- from the OP, which was having a warranty of 4+1 years  and further assured that in case of any defect in the air conditioner, then the same would be removed free of cost.  Further case of the complainant is that after some days of purchase of the air conditioner i.e. on 15.5.2016, the air conditioner made a loud noise and as such, the complainant reported the matter to the OP, then the mechanic of the Op checked the air conditioner, who after checking set right the problem and told the complainant that the said problem has been occurred due to aluminium made air conditioner, whereas the complainant had purchased the air conditioner of copper from the OP.  Thereafter the complainant got checked the air conditioner in question from the expert i.e. Punjab Service Centre on 3.6.2016, who after inspection told that the air conditioner is not made of copper, rather is of aluminium i.e. outdoor condense coil is of aluminium and not of copper.  As such, the complainant immediately approached the Op to replace the same with that of copper, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to replace the aluminium made air conditioner with copper made air conditioner or to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the air conditioner along with interest @ 18% per annum and further  claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed the material facts and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question.  It is stated that the warranty is to be given by the company and not by the supplier. Moreover, it is denied that the OP never assured that the AC is of copper made.  It is further stated that as per the company there are three types of split AC i.e. firstly the AC with both the units (outer and inner) made of copper, secondly the AC with one unit made of copper and other unit made of aluminium and thirdly the AC with both the units made of aluminium.  In the present case, the complainant purchased the AC of second type i.e. the outer unit was made of aluminium and the inside unit was made of copper and the complainant has been charged accordingly.   It is stated that the complainant never lodged any complaint with the OP.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of Jaswinder Singh, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Sonu Jindal, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of job sheet dated 3.6.2016, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of product detail, Ex.OP-3 copy of bill and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased one air conditioner of Lloyd as detailed above from the OP for Rs.24,000/- vide bill dated 7.5.2016 for Rs.24,000/-.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP supplied another quality product i.e. the complainant had purchased the air conditioner (copper made), whereas the OP supplied the complainant the AC made of aluminium.  To support his contention, the complainant has drawn our attention towards the copy of the bill, Ex.C-3, a bare perusal of it clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question made of copper  made, whereas the OP supplied the air conditioner made of aluminium, as is evident form the copy of the report produced by Punjab Service Centre, which is on record Ex.C-4 and further to support this contention the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of Jaswinder Singh, expert, wherein it is clearly mentioned that “outdoor condense coil is of aluminium and not of copper”.   Further this fact is also evident from the copy of bill Ex.OP-3 produced by the Op wherein it is clearly stated that the sold AC was of ‘copper made’.  Further the OP has produced nothing on record to corroborate his contention that the AC purchased by the complainant was that of second type i.e. the outer unit was made of aluminium and the inside unit was made of copper, as nothing like this has been mentioned on the bill Ex.C-2.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP to rebut this point i.e. mentioning of “copper made” on the bill Ex.C-3.  But, the fact remains that the air conditioner is working properly and there is no defect or manufacturing defect therein in the air conditioner.  As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Op is directed to replace the aluminium unit with the copper unit of the air conditioner in question.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to replace the aluminium unit with the copper unit of the air conditioner in question. The OP shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

7.             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.

                October 25, 2016.

 

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member