Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/152

Naveen Kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.L. Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Maheshwari

21 Aug 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                    152 of 2018

Date of Institution :       21.09.2018

Date of Decision :         21.08.2019

Naveen Kaushik son of Inder Parkash Kaushik, aged about 45 years, r/o Village Romana Albel Singh, Near Gurudawara, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. C L Electronics, Railway Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its authorized signatory.
2. Havells India Ltd (Llyod) Regd. Office at 904, Surya Kiran Building, KG Marg, New Dehi-110001 through its authorized signatory.
3. Gill Enterprises (authorized serve centre of Llyod Electriclas Ltd) Dogar Basti, Street No.4-L, Main Road, Faridkot-151203.

        ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

                    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:      Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

 Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:        Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                    Sh Gurpreet Chauhan, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                    OP-1 and 3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking

 

cc no.-152 of 2018

directions to Ops to replace the defective AC with new one or to refund the cost price of AC and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.11,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a split air conditioner make Llyod worth Rs.27,500/-from OP-1 manufactured by OP-2 against bill dated 14.06.2014 with one year warranty for entire AC and four year warranty for compressor. In July, 2018 said AC stopped working and complainant reported the matter to OPs, but despite repeated requests and SMS sent by complainant on toll free number of OPs on 19.07.2018,  no representative of OPs came to repair the air conditioner. Complainant made requests to OPs on 16.07.2018, 19.07.2018, 23.07.2018 and 26.07.2018 and then, on 26.07.2018 representative of OPs visited the house of complainant when only his mother was at home and he told his mother that air conditioner is now working and charged Rs.500/-for repair, but despite this said AC did not work. Complainant again made requests to OPs and then, their representative changed the capacitor of air conditioner on 4.08.2018 and charged Rs.2000/-against receipt no.102 dated 4.08.20218, but after few hours it again stopped working and complainant again made request at toll free number of OP-2 on 5.08.2018. On 20.08.2018, their representative visited his house and charged Rs.2205.90 for filling gas which complainant deposited in the account of OP-3, but air conditions is still not in working condition. After that complainant made several requests to OPs to replace defective air conditioner with new one, but they refused to replace the same, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for seeking

cc no.-152 of 2018

direction to Ops to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.11.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              OP-2 filed reply through counsel wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainant has not placed on record any expert evidence to prove any manufacturing defect in said air conditioner. It is averred that answering OP is always ready and willing to provide services and to rectify the defect subject to terms and conditions of the warranty and submitted that their technical team contacted complainant several times but he avoided the service call on one pretext or the other with a malafide intention. It is admitted that they received call on 4.09.2018 which was duly attended by their technician on 6.09.2018. He found some issue with compressor which was taking high amperes and then, answering OP arranged new compressor and on 15.09.2018, when their technician approached complainant to replace the compressor, complainant refused for service stating that he was out of station and he did not let their technician to replace the compressor. On merits, OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and concocted ones, but admitted before the Forum that complainant made calls to them on 15.07.2018 and 20.07.2018, which were attended by their technician on 19.07.2018 and 7.08.2018 and both these calls were registered as waste calls as on visit of first call, complainant uninstalled the AC

cc no.-152 of 2018

and on second visit, he told their technician that he would call back as he had got the AC checked locally and put it for testing. It is totally denied that their representative ever charged any amount of Rs.2205.90 from complainant for filing the gas that complainant deposited in the account of OP-3. It is reiterated that complainant has levelled false allegations against them and there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-3, but it refused to accept the same and did not bother to contest the case and therefore, vide order dated 6.11.2018, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                                  Notice issued to OP-1 through registered cover did not receive back undelivered and was presumed to be served. Even after expiry of statutory period, no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-1 either in person or through Counsel on date fixed to contest the case despite long waiting till 4 O’ clock and therefore, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.12.2018.

7                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 9 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                          To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 suffered statement that written statement filed by him be considered as evidence on his part and closed the same.

 

cc no.-152 of 2018

9                                                                  We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as OP-2. After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by respective parties, it is observed that  from the bill Ex C-2, it is the clear that complainant purchased the air conditioner in question from OP-1 on 14.06.2014 for Rs.27,500/-. Ex C-3 clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that he deposited Rs.2,205.90 in the account of OP-3 for filling gas in his air conditioner. Ex C-4 further proves the fact that complainant paid Rs.2000/-to OP for changing capacitor on 4.08.2018. Documents Ex C-5 to ExC-7 are copies of text messages sent by complainant to OPs and correspondence occurred between complainant and OPs regarding problem in his
AC. In the light of these messages there remains no doubt that there is some defect in the air conditioner in question, regarding which complainant made several requests to Ops to repair his AC, but despite all this, OPs have failed to remove the defect. Act of OPs in charging repair charges from complainant is also inappropriate because air conditioner in question was under warranty period and he was entitled for free services. It was the duty of OPs to provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant. Through Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his pleadings and grievance. Grievance of complainant is that despite making several requests to OPs, they did not replace or repair his air conditioner which amounts to deficiency in service. Had OPs paid any heed to hear the complaints and requests of complainant in respect of redressal of his grievance regarding non working of his air conditioner and have provided effective services by doing repair of AC in question or replaced the defective part, nature of complaint would have been different.

 

cc no.-152 of 2018

10                                                                From the above discussion and keeping in view the record placed on file and arguments advanced by parties,  it is made out that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs not providing effective services in repairing the air conditioner of complainant . Hence, present complaint is allowed with direction to OPs to repair the air conditioner of complainant and to replace the defective parts if any free of costs up to the entire satisfaction of complainant. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 21.08.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President