Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 464.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 11.08.2017.

                                                                    Decided on       : 22.04.2019.

Satish Kumar Advocate son of Sh. Raj Singh, age 42 years, Resident of village Samargopalpur, Tehsil & District Rohtak.                                                                                                           ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Goel Enterprises, Shop No. 7, Palika Bazaar, Rohtak through its

Priprietor/Authorized Person.

2. Carrier, registered office Ist Floor, Pearl Global Tower, Plot No. 51, Institutional Area, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122004 through its Director Manager/Authorized Person/Principal Officer.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Birender Saini, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.

                   Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased one window Carrier AC bears Sr. No. 500371919169009212, AC Estrella Plus, 3 star, 1.5 Ton from respondent No. 1 which is manufactured by respondent No. 2 amounting to Rs.28,500/- vide bill No. 20964 dated 25.07.2016. That the official of the respondents visited the premises of the complainant and installed the said AC and charged Rs. 750/- vide bill No.107. It is alleged that after installation of the said AC very next day, the same has become defective and on complaint made by the complainant, respondents replaced the said defective AC with new one bearing Model GWARC-018ER020/2016. It is further alleged that the replaced A.C. was also defective since the day of its installation and as having problems like water problem, bad smell problem and having other defects therein. That the complainant made several complaints to the respondents on Toll Free Telephone No. 180030111111, but all in vain. That there is manufacturing defect in the alleged A.C. and the act of opposite parties of selling the defective A.C. is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the said AC with new one or to return the amount of Rs.28,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply submitted that the complainant in complete violation of the express terms of warranty got the said AC unit installed by the unauthorized technician and due to such unauthorized installation, there was water leakage from the said AC. It is further submitted that the opposite party being a consumer oriented company and in order to avoid unnecessary litigation, replaced the said AC in August, 2016 despite the fact that the said AC unit was suffering from a minor water leakage issue which was solely due to faulty installation of the said AC unit by an unauthorized third party. It is further submitted that on 27.04.2017 after receiving a service request from the complainant, a technician visited the complainant and at that time, said AC was absolutely fine. On 15.07.2017 complainant complained about the noise from the said AC and the technician of the OP checked the same and found that the same was due to loosing of window frame but the complainant refused to tighten the same and demanded replacement of AC. That there was absolutely no problem in the said A.C. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 2.

3.                          Whereas, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 be also read on behalf of opposite party no. 1.

4.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence on dated 01.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.RW2/A and has closed his evidence on dated 25.03.2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 made a statement that evidence tendered  on behalf of opposite party No. 2 be also read on behalf of opposite party No. 1.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the complainant, the A.C. sold by the opposite parties was defective but the same was not repaired by the OP despite his repeated requests. The contention of the opposite party is that the A.C. in question was got installed by the complainant from the unauthorized third party and the defect in the A.C. was due to the same fact.  However opposite party has not placed on record any document to prove that the A.C. in question was got installed by the unauthorized person. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record copy of installation bill Ex.C2 which shows that the A.C. in question was got installed from the authorized person. Complainant has also placed on record copy of messages for service of A.C. which are Ex.C4 to Ex.C9. However, opposite party has not placed on record copy of any report to prove that any mechanic of the opposite party visited the premises of complainant and made a report that the defect in the A.C was due to loosing of window frame. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

7.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to deliver new A.C. to the complainant of the same price in replacement of the old one and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant on account of cost of litigation and the compensation for the harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant. Order be complied within one month from the date of decision.

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

22.04.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.