Haryana

Ambala

CC/172/2015

Krishan Lal Gakhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ETA Genderal Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Vashisht.

09 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 172 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 24.06.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 09.11.2017

 

 

Krishan Lal Gakhar aged 65 years son of late Sh.K.R.Gakhar resident of 541, Sonia Colony, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

1. ETA General Private Limited Third Floor, New Number 71, Old Number 63, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai through its M.D/Chairman.
2. M/s Modern Radio & Electric Store, Bal Bhawan Road, adjoining Corporation Bank, Ambala City through its proprietor/partner.
3. M/s Dhiman Air Conditioning & system, shop No.94, Haryana Motor Market, Ambala City through its proprietor/partner Sh.Kamal Kumar @ Pappu.

….…. Opposite parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                                                                    MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                  

 

 

Present:       Sh. Sanjeev Vashisth, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Pushkar Sharma, counsel for Op No.1.                                                                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, counsel for Op No.2.                                                           Sh.Kamal Dhiman, Adv. for Op No.3.

 

ORDER:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a split A.C. 1.5, make O-General amount of Rs. 46,000/- vide bill No. 9624 dated 27.06.2010 from OP No.2. The AC developed problems within two months of its purchase as it started ceased cooling. The matter was brought to the notice of Op No.2 who sent an electrician instead of skilled engineer. The electrician only filled in the gas without attending the query about manufacturing defect in the AC.  The AC worked properly upto April 2011 and it again developed the same problem, therefore, matter was again intimated to the Op No.2 who instead of replacing or removing the defect made excuses  that it required high capacity stabilizer to remove the defect as the area of the complainant was of low voltage area and received Rs.2000/- from the complainant. Thereafter the AC again started giving same problem in the month of July, 2011 and this time also the mechanic of OP No.2 charged Rs.2000/- from him.  The AC did not work from the day of its purchase till May, 2014 and the mechanic had told that it is having manufacturing defect. The complainant again visited Op No.2 who sent him to OP No.3 which sent his mechanic in the month of May, 2014 who only filled the gas after taking three days and also charged Rs.2000/- but in August, 2014 it trapped and ceased completely.  The OP No.3 took the same on a vehicle, charge thereof was paid by the complainant, and asked that one part and one card of the same are needed to be replaced and finally delivered the same back to the complainant in the end of October, 2014 and charged Rs.15,000/- but issued the receipt No.461 dated 28.10.2014 for Rs.8800/-  only but failed to install the same, therefore, the complainant arranged another mechanic who told that still gas is to be inflated, therefore, the complainant spent Rs.2800/- extra for filling the gas and installation charges.  The act and conduct of the OPs in not redressing the grievance of the complainant is clearly deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 and Annexure C2.

2.                          Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has never approached for any manufacturing fault and the manufacturing warranty of the product was only for one year and after sale of the product and completing of warranty period there was no liability of the Op No.1. The mechanic sent by Op No.2 was its self employed electricians and nor qualified engineer from Op No.1. Since the gas was filled in by the private electrician, therefore, manufacturing warranty was ceased as AC was open and closed by unqualified person. Other allegations levelled in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the same has been made.

                   Op No.2 in its separate reply has submitted that OP Nos.1 & 3 to were to look after the mater.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 as no payment was ever received. Other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   Op No.3 in its separate reply has submitted that OP No.3 made best efforts to remove the difficulties and there was only one problem qua shortage of gas in the AC. The AC started working properly immediately after filling of the gas. The repair work was done upto the satisfaction of the complainant.  OP No.3 after controverting the other allegations, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                   In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RA and  Annexure RX.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.  

                   The complainant has come with the plea that he had purchased a split AC from OP No.2  vide Annexure C1  but it went out of order number of times and the Op No.3 charged Rs.15,000/- qua repairing of the AC (though bill was issued for Rs.8800/- Annexure C2) besides charging of Rs.2000/- by Op No.2 many a times and in support of his version he has furnished his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CX.

                   Perusal of the file reveals that the complainant in his complaint has mentioned that the AC went out of order within two months of its purchase and it further went out of order in April, 2011, September, 2011, May, 2012 and May, 2014 but he has not placed on file any evidence/job sheet to show that the AC was not working properly in the months as alleged by him.  The AC was purchased  on 27.06.2010 and vide Annexure C2 the same was repaired on 28.10.2014  by OP No.3 i.e. after completing of four years. The Op No.1 has rightly pointed out that warranty period of the product was one year and as per admission of complainant the AC was repaired by unskilled electrician, therefore, the warranty of the product ceases automatically. It was open for the complainant to get the AC mechanically inspected through an expert in compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act but he has no moved an application before this Forum for the same. Moreover, the complainant himself has not produced any cogent any reliable evidence to prove the version as depicted by him in his complaint to prove that the Ops were deficient in providing service to him. Accordingly, the present complaint deserves dismissal. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :09.11.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

                                                                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                                                                                             Member