Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/205

Satinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhruv Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:205 dated 09.04.2021.                       

                                 Date of decision: 09.09.2022.

Satinder Singh c/o Dashmesh Wheel, Rajguru Nagar, Firozepur Road, Ludhiana also at village VPO Pamal Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant 

 

1.Dhruv Electronic, B-1-1462/4, Rajpura Road, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab B.O.Main Road Basti Jodhewal, Adjoining Vijaya Bank, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Sh.Dhruv Bajaj.

2.Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. B 18 3351, Gurcharan park, New Model Town, Ludhiana-141002.                                                                                                                                                         …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh. Sunil Srivastav, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Exparte

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Daikin AC from the OP1 on 27.05.2020 vide invoice No.GST-260. However the AC was found to be defective in nature from the very first day of its purchase. The complainant approached the OPs many a times and lodged many complaints to the service centre of the OPs but to no avail. The complainant tried to contact the OPs to change the AC but no heed was paid by the OPs. On 18.06.2020 and then on 03.07.2020, the authorized service centre engineers came to repair the AC but the defects could not be removed. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 16.12.2020 upon the OPs but despite that no action was taken by them. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the AC and damages of Rs.50,000/- be also awarded to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 did not turn up despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.02.2022.

3.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by the OP1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is false and frivolous. According to the OP1, the product sold to the complainant was perfectly fine and did not have any defect as alleged by the complainant. According to the OP1, the product can be changed by the company only on the basis of the specific report made by the authorized service centre. Therefore, question of replacement of air conditioner does not arise. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OP1 has not formally tendered any evidence but written statement is supported by an affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Dhruv Bajaj, Proprietor of OP1 and document Ex.R1 has been attached with the written statement which can be read in the evidence of OP1.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and OP1 and have also gone through the records.

7.                The grievance of the complainant in this case is that the OP1 sold the defective air conditioner to the complainant which started giving problems from the day one and the defects could not be removed. However, in the entire complaint, it has not been mentioned as to what defects were there in the air conditioner. The complainant has further not examined any mechanical engineer or mechanic to prove that there was some inherent manufacturing defect in the air conditioner sold to the complainant. On the contrary, the complainant himself has placed on record the job card Ex.C3 dated 18.06.2020 wherein it is mentioned that only remote of the AC was not working properly while the AC was working OK. The complainant himself has placed on record the another job card Ex.C4 dated 03.07.2020 wherein it is mentioned that the remote has been changed and the new remote was working OK and the air conditioner was also working properly. Therefore, it appears from the record that only remote of the AC was defective which has been replaced by the OPs as is evident from service completion certificate Ex.C4. Apart from that, no defect has been point out or proved by the complainant in the air conditioner. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service is made out against the OPs.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.09.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma