BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.71/14.

Date of instt.: 02.04.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.09.2015.

Virender son of Sh. Bashesar Dass, resident of Village Choth, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Chaudhary Electronics, 5, Koel Complex Building, Kaithal.

2. Voltas Ltd. UPBG, A-43, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

3. Bharti Communications, F117-118, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex, near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal (Authorized Service-Centre of Voltas Product).

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Swai Ram, Advocate for complainant.

                        Op No.1 already exparte.

Sh. Munish Sikri, Advocate for the opposite party.No.2

Op No.3 already defence struck off.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased an Air Conditioner/AC of 1.5 ton from Op No.1 vide invoice No.9634 dt. 23.04.2009 for consideration of Rs.16,500/- against the warranty of five years of compressor of AC.  It is alleged that from the date of its purchase, the said compressor of AC was not working properly due to technical defect and there was cooling problem with the AC and sometime, cooling effect became nil in this AC.  It is further alleged that the complainant made several complaints to the Ops to rectify the fault in said AC/compressor but every time, the employees of Ops tried to locate the fault in the said AC/compressor but within short period, it became again faulty.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 16.05.2014.  Op No.3 did not file reply despite availing several opportunities and also did not appear on 12.02.2015, so, defence of Op No.3 was struck off and was also proceeded against exparte.  Op No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; time-barred; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op; that the complainant is not a consumer with the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the AC was purchased for the commercial purposes and earning profits.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed evidence on 25.08.2015.  On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 25.08.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant purchased an Air Conditioner/AC of 1.5 ton from Op No.1 vide invoice No.9634 dt. 23.04.2009 for consideration of Rs.16,500/- against the warranty of five years of compressor of AC.  He further argued that from the date of its purchase, the said compressor of AC was not working properly due to technical defect and there was cooling problem with the AC and sometime, cooling effect became nil in this AC.  He further argued that the complainant made several complaints regarding the defective AC but every time, the Ops tried to locate the fault in said AC/compressor but within short period, it became again faulty.  He also argued that the AC in question was sent for repair with Bharti Communications, Lala Lajpat Rai Market, Kaithal, copy of bill dt. 15.04.2013 issued by the Op No.3 regarding repair of said Compressor/AC is placed on the file vide which the Op No.3 charged a sum of Rs.2100/- from the complainant.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint.  He has made reliance upon the law mentioned in the authority titled as Kamal Kishore Vs. Electronic Corporation of India, 2010 revision petition No.3092 (NC), wherein it has been held that In the absence of expert evidence, manufacturing defect cannot be proved and without an expert opinion, it cannot be ascertained that the unit acquires a manufacturing defect, complaint dismissed and Shiv Parsad Paper Industries Vs. Senior Machinery Company, 2006(1) CLT page 527 (NC), wherein it has been held that An equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired.  In the present case, the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence which could prove that the said AC was having any manufacturing defect.  So, we are of the considered view that the said AC is repairable.   

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to repair the AC and change the compressor free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant.  No order as to costs.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.11.09.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.