Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/871/2012

Rahul Sharma S/o Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Geeta Eletronics - Opp.Party(s)

YashPal Singh

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.  871 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 14.8.2012.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 13.8.2015

Rahul Sharma son of Sh. Surinder Kumar resident of 533, Roop Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                                          Versus

 

1. Geeta Electronics, 69, 76, Shivaji Market, Shivaji Chowk, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor.    

2. Videocon Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office at 45, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 

 

                                                                                                                                                             …opposite parties.

                       

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

             SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.           

 

Present: Sh. Yashpal Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              OP No.1 ex-parte. 

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.      

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Rahul Sharma has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents    ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective AC with new one and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant purchased one Air Conditioner Make Videocon from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 19000/- vide bill No. 76 dated 15.4.2010 (Annexure C-1). The OP No.2 is the registered office of Videocon Pvt. Ltd. Hence there is a relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and OPs. It has been further alleged that at the time of purchasing of Air Conditioner, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the said AC is of best quality and he will not face any defect in the said Air Conditioner and also provided warranty for five years. After 2-3 months, from the date of purchase, the Air Conditioner stopped working as it did not cool the room properly and the complainant approached the OP No.1, the engineer of OP No.1  inspected the A.C and changed the Compressor of the said A.C. but after some days again the A.C. became out of order. Again the engineers of the OP again changed the compressor of the said A.C. but after few days the same problem occurred and in this way the OPs have changed the compressor of Air Conditioner four times but the OPs failed to remove the defect. At the time of last replacement of compressor, the OP charged worth of the said compressor from the complainant vide Job No. KAR2506120192 (Annexure C-3) whereas the said Air Conditioner was within warranty period.  It has been further submitted that the OPs have flatly refused to remove the defect of the said Air Conditioner or to replace the defective Air Conditioner with new one.  The complainant requested to OPs to replace the Air Conditioner with a new one as there was a manufacturing defect in it but they refused to accede to this genuine request. Thus, the act and conduct of the OPs is wrong and illegal and they are guilty of deficient and negligent, causing great mental agony, harassment and monetary loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 1.10.2012. OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable, Air Conditioner of the complainant become out of warranty, not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppression of material facts, no locus standi, no cause of action and on merit it has been mentioned that Videocon is a renowned company in Electronics products and commodities and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated.  The complainant lodged his first complaint with the opposite party No.2 for the first time on 21.4.2011 upon which the Air Conditioner of the complainant was checked and some adjustment of the fan of the Air Conditioner was done. Secondly the complaint was lodged on 25.6.2012 upon which the Air Conditioner of the complainant was checked and the compressor of the said Air Conditioner was found to be giving problem and the same was replaced with new one. It is denied that the compressor or motor of the Air Conditioner was changed four times. It has been further mentioned that the complainant was got registered his complaint on 25.6.2012 after more than two years of the purchase of Air Conditioner and complaint was duly attended and the gas was filled in the compressor and gas charges were taken from the complainant as the air conditioner in question had became out of warranty. It has been further mentioned that after its repair the said air conditioner had been working properly in perfect working condition, hence no question of giving any replacement to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered Affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 Photo copy of bill No.76 dated 15.4.2010,  C-2 Photo copy of terms and conditions of warranty,  C-3 Photo copy of  Bill /job sheet and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Joginder Kaushik, Authorized Signatory as Annexure R2/X and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for the OP No.2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

7.                      From the perusal of Annexure C-1, it is clear that the complainant had purchased Air Conditioner from OP No.1 on 15.4.2010 by paying a sum of Rs. 19,000/-. The complainant alleged that the Air Conditioner in question became defective after few months of its purchase and he made complaints to the Ops whereas the OP No.2, in his written statement, has admitted that the complainant lodged his first complaint on 21.4.2011 upon which the Air Conditioner of the complainant was checked and some adjustment of the fan was done and second complaint was lodged by the complainant on 25.6.2012  upon which the air conditioner of the complainant was checked and compressor of the said air conditioner was replaced with new one.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the compressor of the said Air Conditioner was not working properly and become out of order, on this the matter was reported to the OP No.1 and the compressor of the Air Conditioner was changed on 25.6.2012 and this fact has been admitted by the OPs in their written statement in para No.4 of reply on merit wherein it has been specifically mentioned that “ secondly complaint was lodged by the complainant on 25.6.2012  upon which the Air Conditioner of the complainant was checked and the compressor of the said Air Conditioner was found to be giving problem. The said Compressor of the Air Conditioner was replaced with new one”. When the OPs himself had admitted that the compressor of the Air Conditioner was not working properly and was dead. Hence, the OPs were not entitled to charge Rs. 2050/- on account of gas charges from the complainant as it has been specifically mentioned in their warranty card Annexure R-2 under Head:

  4 years additional warranty on compressor

            The 4 years additional warranty on compressor will be continue even after the expiry of 1 year period from the date of purchase. This warranty covers compressor only. “Gas charging is included only when compressor is defective & inoperative.”

9.                     As such, the OPs have failed to convince this Forum that in what manner the amount of Rs. 2050/- has been charged on account of gas charges from the complainant which is evident from Annexure C-3, when the compressor was within warranty on that date. Hence, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the refund of this amount i.e. Rs. 2050/- from the OP No.2.

10.                   Second plea of the complainant’s counsel is that the Air Conditioner is still not working and not in order is not tenable as the complainant has not filed any expert report from any mechanic from which this Forum can take presumption that the Air Conditioner of the complainant is not in working condition. The complainant has only filed his affidavit annexure CX and copy of bill dated 15.4.2010 Annexure C-1 and warranty card Annexure C-2 and receipt of gas charges as Annexure C-3 and from these documents it cannot be ascertained that the Air Conditioner of the complainant is not in working condition. Hence, after going through the above noted facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the OP No.2 has wrongly charged Rs. 2050/- on account of gas charges from the complainant during the warranty period.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.2 to refund a sum of Rs. 2050/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days and also to pay Rs. 1500/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses failing which complainant is at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the opposite party No.2 as per law. The complaint is partly allowed in above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.13.8.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.