BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.379/14

Date of Institution: 17/07/2014

Date of Decision: 04/02/2015

Shri Sanjay Tulli son of Sh.Hemant Tulli, resident of H.No.780/15, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Putlighar, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Godrej & Boyce Limited, through its M.D/ Director/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory/ Person in charge, Vikhroli East, Mumbai.
2. M/s.DTH Care Centre, Authorized Service Centre for Godrej & Boyce Production, through it partner/ prop. Near Civil Hospital, Amritsar.
3. M/s.Hardeep Radio & Electric Works, through its partner/ proprietor, Cemetry Road, Putlighar, Amritsar.   

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present:  For the Complainant       : Sh.Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

               For Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Rajinder Sharma, Deputy Manager                    For Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Harjinder Singh, Manager of DTH

               For Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Hardeep Singh, Proprietor.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sanjay Tulli under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one split Air Conditioner of capacity 1.5 Ton, Make Godrej from Opposite Party No.3 for a sum of Rs.26500/- vide Invoice No. 3393 dated 31.7.2013. Complainant alleges that Air Conditioner in question is a reliable product of Godrej, which is a leading group of companies in this trade and the said Air Conditioner was having one year warranty. That from 31.7.2013 till the end of summer in 2013, the Air Conditioner in question worked perfectly and thereafter, the said Air Conditioner was closed for winter season, but when in the summer season of 2014 the complainant started the said Air Conditioner, it was not working properly. The cooling effect was decreased than earlier. In the month of May, 2014, the mother of the complainant came to the complainant from Delhi and she stayed with the complainant at his home, but during her stay in the house, the said Air Conditioner could not work properly as the cooling effect was very low and not up to the mark of satisfaction even on minimum temperature commands. In this regard, the complainant made a complaint to the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. service centre of Godrej products, against complaint No.50706376787 on 7.6.2014. The technicians of Opposite Party No.2 came and repaired the Air Conditioner, but again after 3-4 days, said Air Conditioner stopped the cooling and again a complaint No. 51606377536 was made on 16.6.2014. The technicians of the Opposite Party No.2 again came and repaired the Air Conditioner, but it hardly worked for two days and since then the complainant has made two complaints bearing Nos.52006377952 and 50807378707 and has also  made so many telephonic calls and personal visits to Opposite Parties, but all the times, they put off the matter on one pretext after the another on the excuse that the said Air Conditioner is having some manufacturing defect and they did not visit to repair the Air Conditioner in question till date. The complainant has many a times requested the Opposite Parties to replace the said defective Air Conditioner with new one, but inspite of having full knowledge that the said Air Conditioner is having some manufacturing defect in it, which could not be rectified, the Opposite Parties have not replaced the same when it is still under warranty period, as such now the complainant does not want to keep said faulty product with him. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the Air Conditioner with new one or in alternative they be directed to take back their faulty product and to refund a sum of Rs.26500/- to the complainant alongwith interest.   Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite Party No.3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the bill, there is no warranty period mentioned in the bill. However, no complaint was lodged with the Opposite Party No.3 and the complaints are to be lodged with Opposite Party No.2 at their service centre. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copy of bill Ex.C1 and copy of warranty of Air Conditioner Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Sharma Ex.OP1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Hardeep Singh, proprietor Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3. 
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased one split Air Conditioner make Godrej of 1.5 Ton capacity, from Opposite Party No.3 vide Invoice No. 3393 dated 31.7.2013 for a sum of Rs.26500/-. As per the averments of the complainant, said Air Conditioner worked perfectly from 31.7.2013 till the end of summer season 2013, but when summer season of 2014 started, said Air Conditioner failed to give proper cooling in May, 2014. Said Air Conditioner did not work properly to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of Godrej Company vide complaint No.50706376787 dated 7.6.2014. The technician of Opposite Party No.2 came to the house of the complainant and repaired the Air Conditioner of the complainant. But after 3-4 days, said Air Conditioner stopped cooling and  again the complainant  approached Opposite Party No.2 vide complaint No. 51606377536 dated 16.6.2014. Again technician of the Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant, checked and repaired the said Air Conditioner, but said Air Conditioner worked hardly for 2 days and since then, the complainant has made 2 complaints bearing Nos.52006377952 and 50807378707 and has also  made so many telephonic calls and personal visits to Opposite Party No.2, but in vain and the Opposite Party No.2  could not repair the Air Conditioner and make it fully functional. Ld.counsel for the complainant, therefore, submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that he is dealer only and he has sold the Air Conditioner in question to the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 manufacturer of the Air Conditioner in question is liable to repair or to replace the product as per terms and conditions of the warranty. Opposite Party No.3 has no concern with the same. As such, Opposite Party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.1 as per affidavit of Rajinder Sharma, Deputy Service Manager of Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Company Limited Ex.OP1/1 is that answering Opposite Party never received any complaint till June, 2014 from the complainant. However, they received first complaint from the complainant on 7.6.2014 i.e. after 11 months from the date of purchase vide Service Call No.,376787 dated 7.6.2014. Said call was fully attended by Opposite Party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 vide Ex.OP1/2. There was problem of leakage of gas and the gas was filled free of cost and the Air Conditioner was made fully functional. Another complaint was received from the complainant on 16.6.2014 vide Service Call No.377536 Ex.OP1/3. Said call was fully attended by the Technician of Opposite Party No.2 and the Air Conditioner was found in perfect working condition, but due to low voltage problem at the premises of the complainant, the cooling was  not proper. The complainant was advised to get the stabilizer checked. Again complaint No. 377952 dated 20.6.2014 was received from the complainant which was again attended by the Technician of Opposite Party No.2. Air Conditioner was found in perfect working condition and the said job sheet finds mention no complaint. However, again on 8.7.2014 the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 vide job sheet Ex.OP1/5. Resultantly, gas was filled and compressor was changed and the Air Conditioner was made fully functional and one Ranjit Singh representative of the complainant signed the job sheet Ex.OP1/5 after full satisfaction of the job done by Opposite Party No.2. Rajinder Sharma, Deputy Service Manager of Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Company Limited who was appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 also stated at bar in the Forum that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are still ready to remove, if there is any defect in the Air Conditioner of the complainant. The representatives of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.    
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased  one split Air Conditioner make Godrej of 1.5 Ton capacity, from Opposite Party No.3 vide Invoice No. 3393 dated 31.7.2013 for a sum of Rs.26500/-, copy of which is Ex.C1. It is admitted case of the complainant that from 31.7.2013, said Air Conditioner worked properly till the end of summer season 2013. However, said Air Conditioner gave problem of less cooling in the next summer season  and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre for the first time on 7.6.2014 vide job sheet Ex.OP1/2. Opposite Party No.2 immediately attended the complainant. Gas was refilled and Air Conditioner was made fully functional and complainant himself signed this job sheet to the effect that he was satisfied with the job done and that product is working properly and satisfactorily. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 16.6.2014 and 20.6.2014 vide job sheets Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/4 respectively and this time, Air Conditioner was found in OK condition. However, there was some voltage problem and these complaints were also immediately attended by Opposite Party No.2 and the Air Conditioner was made fully functional. Thereafter, complainant  approached Opposite Party No.2 on 8.7.2014 vide job sheet Ex.OP1/5 and Opposite Party No.2 refilled the gas and even compressor of the Air Conditioner was changed by Opposite Party No.2 and Air Conditioner was made fully functional and the representative of the complainant namely Ranjit Singh signed this job sheet Ex.OP1/5 dated 8.7.2014 to the effect that  he was satisfied with the job done and the product is working satisfactorily after repair. This job was done by Opposite Party No.2 during the pendancy of this complaint and the complainant did not rebut this job sheet which fully proves that the Opposite Party No.2 made the Air Conditioner of the complainant fully functional and even the compressor has been changed. Even the representative of Opposite Party No.1 Sh.Rajinder Sharma, Deputy Service Manager of Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Company Limited stated at bar that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are still ready to do any service to the Air Conditioner of the complainant without charging any amount to the satisfaction of the complainant. So, all this shows that Opposite Parties have repaired the Air Conditioner of the complainant to the  satisfaction of the complainant, but after filing of the present complaint. So, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint for the redressal of his grievances.
10. Resultantly, we dispose of the present complaint with the directions to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to make the repair of the Air Conditioner in question, if any, so that the same be made fully functional. However, Opposite Parties have repaired the Air Conditioner of the complainant and changed the compressor after filing of the present complaint by the complainant, as such, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2500/-.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 04.02.2015.                                                                     (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                          President

hrg                                                                  (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

                                        Member