Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/221/2015

Ravi Saini S/o Rameshwar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fisher Refrigrations. - Opp.Party(s)

M.C.Saini

07 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No… 221  of 2015.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 08.07.2015.

                                                                                               Date of decision: 07.04.2016.

Ravi Saini aged about 29 years son of Sh. Rameshwar Dass, C/o M/s R.P. Automobiles, Opp. Bhagwan Parshu Ram Mandir Ambala Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Fisher Refrigerations, Shop No. 55-56,Shivaji Market, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar 135001 (Ph. No. 01732-226617) through its Prop./ Partner.
2. Usha International Ltd. Plot No.15, Institutional Area, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Chairman.    
3. Usha Internaional Ltd. (Regd. Office) Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandi Marg, New Delhi (India) through its Managing Director/ Chairman.

 

                                                                                                                                                                              …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Gian Chand Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 4.8.2015.

                  Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

             

 

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Ravi Saini  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                        Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a new Usha Air Cooler bearing Model No. CL70PE having serial No. 1412/00004167 vide its bill No. 304 dated 30.5.2015 from the OPs for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on cash payment and at the time of its purchase the Op No.1 had given onsite one year warranty/ guarantee of the cooler in question. The cooler in question was not giving cooling properly and started creating problem within one week of its purchase due to that the complainant approached the OP No.1 who is dealer of OPs No.2 & 3 manufacturer and told about the complaint. On asking of the OP No.1 complainant lodged his complaint on toll free No. 1800-103-3111  of Usha Internaional Ltd. and after that also got registered a complaint bearing No. 150611601129 dated 11.6.2015 having code No. 1495. On 12.6.2015 service engineer of Usha International Limited had visited the office of the complainant and after checking the cooler, the service engineer asked the complainant that the water cooler must be full and fill and fill ice in the cooler for proper cooling but all in vain. Again a complaint was also lodged on 16.6.2015 but this time engineer of the OPs Mr. Sohan Singh told that there is no manufacturing fault but there is a designing fault in the cooler due to that reason the cooler did not give proper cooling and service engineer has show his inability to rectify the problem. After that complainant visited the office of Ops so many times but no heed has been paid by the OPs. Lastly prayed that Ops be directed to replace the cooler in question with new one of the proper design of the same value or the OPs may kindly be directed to refund the cost of cooler in question alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.   

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 4.8.2015. OPs No. 2 and 3 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is baseless and fragrant abuse of process of law, there is no deficiency in service in any manner, complainant is not a consumer as per definition of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant purchased the cooler being used for commercial purpose which is evident from the averments made by the complainant himself in his complaint and on merit, it has been admitted that a new Usha Air Cooler bearing Model No. CL70PE having serial No. 1412/00004167 vide its bill No. 302 dated 30.5.2015 has been purchased from the OP NO.1 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. It has also been further admitted that cooler in question has been manufactured by a branded company and at the time of purchase OP No.1 had assured that it will give satisfactory performance up to long period and had also given onsite one year warranty/guarantee. As a matter of fact no manufacturing defect or any defect is in the cooler, so, the replacement of the same does not arise at all. It has been further admitted that a complaint on toll free number vide Code No. 1495 was lodged by the complainant. Upon which, engineer of the Ops No.2 & 3 visited the office of the complainant. Further it is also admitted that an another complaint on toll free number was also lodged on 16.6.2015 vide Code No. 3284 which was also attended by the Service Engineer Mr. Sohan Singh on 17.6.2015. However, it is totally wrong and denied that service engineer has asked to the complainant there is no manufacturing fault but there is a designing fault in the cooler. Rest contents of the complaint were also denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

                        To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and document such as Photo copy of bill dated 30.5.2015 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

                        On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Peeyush Tiwari, Authorized person of Usha International as Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.

                        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

                        It is not disputed that complainant purchased a cooler for a sum of Rs. 15000/- vide bill No. 304 dated 30.5.2015 (copy of which is Annexure C-1) from OP No.1 manufactured by OPs No.2 & 3 i.e. M/s Usha International Ltd. it is also not disputed that the said cooler was having onsite one year warranty/guarantee. The only version of the complainant is that the said cooler has not been giving cooling properly and started creating problem within one week of its purchase. Upon which the complainant lodged so many complaints on dated 11.6.2015 and 16.6.2015 on toll free number but no heed has been paid by the OPs.

                        On the other hand, the stand taken by the Ops No.2 & 3 that the complaint is baseless and abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the OPs. As and when any complaint has been lodged by the complainant the same has been attended immediately by the service engineer of the OPs. However, the complainant has specifically failed to point out any defect in the cooler in question. As a matter of fact it was explained to the complainant that cooling is not due to ambient humidity increases and its cooling will start again when humidity reduces but the complainant was adamant to replacement or refund his money without any fault in the cooler or without any fault on the part of OPs. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that complainant himself has admitted that he is using the abovesaid cooler in his office, so, the complainant also not come under the definition of Consumer and referred the case law titled as Ashoke Khan Vs. Atish Kumar Saha, 1998(1) CPR page 707. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. . 

                         After hearing the arguments, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainant has totally failed to file any report to prove that the cooler in question was having any manufacturing defect. The only grievances of the complainant is that the said cooler was not giving cooling properly and started creating problem within a week but the complainant totally failed to file any cogent evidence or to disclose specific defect in the cooler in question. Mere not giving the cooling does not constitute any manufacturing defect as there are so many reasons, out of one which one, has been disclosed by the OPs that cooling was not due to ambient humidity in the air. As the complainant has not filed any expert report/mechanic report as such he has miserably failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the cooler in question. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant.

                        Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 Announced in open court 7.4.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.