DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  655

                                                Instituted on:    07.11.2016

                                                Decided on:       22.02.2017

Amolak Preet Alias Amolak Khan son of Tota Khan, R/O Sanjhi Patti, Village Kanjhla, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Bharat Light House, Prem Basti, Street No.6, Sangrur through its proprietor/owner.

2.     Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd. Plot No.2 Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110 019 (India) through its Manager.

3.     Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd. Plot No.256, Phase No.9, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Branch Head, Surinder Ji.

4.     Gajinder Bhargav, Area Manager, Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd. Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               In person.

For OPs 2 to 4          :               Shri Ajay Bansal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Exparte.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Amolak Preet, 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 the complainant purchased one 1.5 ton split air conditioner of Lloyd company bearing model number LS-19A3SH from OP number 1 for Rs.27000/- along with one stabilizer for Rs.2500/- vide bill number 181 dated 11.8.2016, which was having three years warranty of indoor unit and five year warranty of outdoor unit and one year warranty of the stabilizer.  The grievance of the complainant is that from the very beginning of the purchase, the AC has been creating loud noise, which creates disturbances and hindrance in the work and hearing voice of other family members.  As such, the complainant apprised about the problem to the OPs on phone as well as through email.  Further case of the complainant is that though on 1.9.2016 and 3.9.2016, two persons of the OPs came to the house and checked the AC, but they failed to remove the problem. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the AC in question i.e. Rs.27000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further  claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 to 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is baseless, devoid of any merits, that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum, that the complaint should be dismissed as the AC in question was checked by the engineers of the Ops in the presence of the complainant and found no fault of any type in the air conditioner in question, rather the complainant was satisfied.  It is further stated that the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law and has further stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant had purchase the AC in question on 11.8.2016 from OP number 1. It is denied that there is any defect in the AC in question. However, it is admitted that the complainant registered a complaint on 30.8.2016 and a engineer of the OP namely Kamlesh Kumar visited in the house of the complainant and thoroughly checked the AC and prepared the job card and requested to the complainant to sign the report , but he refused to do so. The complainant lodged other complaints on 3.9.2016 and 5.9.2016, which were duly attended, but the complainant refused to sign the job card sheets.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and that the complainant has concocted a false story to file the present complaint.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 expert report and Ex.C-2 affidavit of Hardeep Singh and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 2 to 4 has produced Ex.OP2to4/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2to4/2 to Ex.OP2to4/4 copies of job cards, Ex.OP2to4/5 copy of visiting card, Ex.OP2to4/6 copy of warranty card and Ex.OP2/to4/7 to Ex.OP2to4/14 copies of other documents and Ex.OP2 to4/15 affidavit of Sandeep Singh and closed evidence.

5.             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  dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased one air conditioner of Lloyd as detailed above from the OP number 1 for 27,000/- vide bill dated 11.8.2016, but the complainant has not produced the copy of the same on record.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the AC supplied by the OP creates a loud noise problem which creates disturbance and hindrance in the work and hearing voice of other family members in the house and to support such a contention, the complainant has produced on record the alleged expert report of Hardeep Singh and his affidavit Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the complainant as the alleged expert report carries no value as the same has not been prepared by any qualified engineer rather the same is prepared by a mechanic who is doing the repairing and servicing work of the air conditioners.  Further there is nothing mentioned in the report that what is the manufacturing defect in the air conditioner in question and why there is noise in the air conditioner, if any.  On the other hand, we have perused the copy of job card sheet Ex.OP2to4/2 to Ex.OP2to4/4, which show that that the air conditioner is working properly, but the complainant refused to sign the report as is evident from the above said job card sheets. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not sign the job card sheets. Further the Ops have produced the affidavit of senior officer service (Technician) of the Ops number 2 to 4 which shows that he visited the house of the complainant on various dates and checked the air conditioner in dispute thoroughly and found nothing wrong with the air conditioner and further there is/was no manufacturing defect therein.  Further the complainant was also advised that the air flow can be adjusted meaning thereby the same can be decreased or increased from the speed button, but the complainant was adamant for replacement of the air conditioner in question and was not listening to the engineer of the OPs.  As such, after going through the whole case file, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record that there is any deficiency in service or there is any manufacturing defect in the air conditioner in question.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 22, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member