Punjab

Sangrur

CC/532/2015

Naib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deol Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Cheema

04 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

 

                                                Complaint No.  532

                                                Instituted on:    01.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.02.2016

 

 

 

Naib Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Kakra Road, Bhwanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Deol Electronics, Near Truck Union, Kakra Road, Bhawanigarh through its Prop.

2.             Whirlpool, B-1/A-12, 1^st Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi-110 044.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri G.S.Cheema, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Naib Singh, 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 whirlpool air conditioner from OP number 1 vide bill number 932 dated 11.7.2014 for Rs.33,500/-. It is further averred that from the first day of its purchase,  the said air conditioner started to give regular irritable noise and there was no cooling, as such, these problems in the air conditioner were brought to the notice of the OP number 1.  After that the mechanic of OP number 1 visited the house of the complainant time and again to solve the problem of the air conditioner, but assured that the defect will be removed by the company mechanic, but nothing happened despite repeated visits of the complainant to the OPs.  The complainant even requested the OPs to replace the defective air conditioner with a new one, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to supply a new air conditioner or to refund its price along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 14.8.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint of the complainant was attended by the mechanic of the OP, but the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to grab the money.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the air conditioner in question has been admitted. It has been stated that the first complaint lodged on 14.7.2015 was duly resolved on 16.7.2015 by the service engineer of the OP.  Thereafter the complainant lodged the complaints on 14.8.2015, 25.8.2015 and 19.9.2015 and the same were duly resolved on the same day.   It is further stated that on the complaint dated 15.8.2015, the service engineer of the OPs visited the complainant’s place and refilled the gas on 18.5.2015 and the air conditioner was in the working condition. It is stated that the complainant has intentionally filed the complaints and the present complaint is said to be false and without any basis and lastly has prayed the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 11.7.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice and Ex.C-4 postal receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit 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 acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is a copy of the bill dated 11.07.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the air conditioner in question for Rs.33,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question and availed the services of the OP number 1 and 2. It is also an admitted fact of the OP number 1 that the complainant approached him and complained about the defects in the air conditioner.   The complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention that the air conditioner is defective one and the defects arose within the guarantee period i.e. from the very first date of its purchase. Further Ex.C-3 is the copy of legal notice served by the learned counsel for the complainant upon the OPs.   On the other hand, the OPs have only produced their sworn affidavits Ex.OP/1 which shows that the mechanic of the company visited the premises of the complainant on 16.7.2015, 15.8.2015, 28.8.2015 and 1.10.2015, respectively and set right the air conditioner in question, which means if there was no cooling then it cannot be said to be an air conditioner. More over, it is the own case of the OPs in their reply as well as affidavit that the mechanic of OP number 2 visited the premises of the complainant on his complaints on 14.8.2015, 25.8.2015 and 19.9.2015 to set right the defective air conditioner. Further there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not set right the air conditioner in question and make it fully functional, when the complainant had spent a sufficient amount for its purchase to enjoy the summer season. Moreover, the Ops have not produced on record any expert report of the expert to show that there was no defect in the air conditioner in question.  In the circumstances of the case,  we feel that it is a case of supply of defective air conditioner to the complainant and the  defects of cooling developed within a very short period of its purchase.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to either  replace the air conditioner in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.33,500/- to the complainant.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             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.

                February 4, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member