Delhi

East Delhi

CC/365/2013

PRAVEEN MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARIOM RETAIL - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no         365 / 2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  03/05/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 23/05/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          24/05/2017   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Praveen Malhotra, adult 

S/o Sh R C Malhotra  

R/o – 3/36, Nehru Gali, Kunti Lane,   

Vishwash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032….……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Hariom Retail Pvt Ltd

B3/2, Ashok Vihar Phase II, New Delhi 110052

 

2-The Managing Director,  

Whirlpool India Ltd.  

Cor. Office- Plot no. 40, Sec 44,

Gurgaon, Haryana 122002…………………………………………………………………..Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case

  

Complainant, Praveen Malhotra purchased Whirlpool 1 ton split AC with one sky bird voltage stabilizer from seller OP1/ Hari Om Retail Pvt Ltd. for a sum of Rs 28,000/-vide invoice no. 12-13/01140 on dated 04/05/2012 and the same was financed also from Bajaj Fin. Co. and the same was installed by the OP1 service engineer on 16/05/2012 as marked Ex CW1/1 & 2.

The said AC was not properly cooling from its installation so complainant lodged his complaint to OP2s on 03/06/2012 which was attended by the service engineer and outdoor panel was cleaned and gave report as AC OK as marked Ex CW1/3. After some time, said AC had same problem and another complaint was lodged on 06/07/2012 which was attended and problem of gas leakage was rectified with the remark as AC OK marked Ex CW1/4. On 08/07/2012, AC had again same problem of cooling, so complaint was lodged and service engineer rectified with remark as “Sudden gas leakage” and gas was filled and AC was functioning well as Ex CW1/5. On 26/07/2012, same cooling problem occurred, so complaint was made and was attended. The service engineer wrote as filter was chocked, so it was changed and AC was functioning OK as marked Ex CW1/6. Again same problem occurred on 04/08/2012 and was attended by service engineer who wrote as “Due to wrong installation, AC was not cooling properly”, so it was rectified as per CW1/7.  

On 25/08/2012 and 24/09/2012, cooling problems were lodged. After checking by OP2 engineer, it was told that PCB was defective and need to be replaced which was replaced by OP2 and AC was functioning well as per CW1/8 & 9.  On 06/10/2012, no cooling problem was reported by complainant to OP2 which too was attended and on checking the outdoor panel, it was mentioned that the grill temp. was getting high as OP2 had replaced the PCB though AC was working OK, so after setting the temp. range, complaint was rectified.

As complainant was not satisfied by the repeated problems in the said AC, so filed this complaint claimed replacement of AC with refund of Rs 20,000/- extra electricity charges paid to BSES for faulty AC with compensation of RS 50,000/- for harassment and Rs 11,000/- as litigation charges.  

Notices were served. OP1/seller did not put their appearance despite of serving number of notices, so OP1 was proceeded Ex Parte. OP2 submitted their written statement taking references of service reports done during the warranty tenure and totally denied all the allegations of complainants as false and incorrect. It was stated that the said AC was purchased in good quality and had no manufacturing defects. OP2 stated that their all products/goods had one year standard warranty and during this warranty tenure, complaints were attended and problems were rectified. As leakage of gas was the main problem, that too was attended by their service engineer every time and no charges were taken from complainant as the said AC was under warranty. Whenever complaint was lodged by complainant, it was attended properly and well in time and problem was rectified by service engineer.

It was stated that complainant had sent a email on 22 May, 2017 for repairing his AC as it had some problem and was very much despair and wants his AC replaced. It was too promptly attended. So there was no deficiency in their services whenever they received complaint, so it was prayed for dismissal of this complaint.  

Complainant did not submit his rejoinder but filed his evidence on affidavit and affirmed himself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true and all correct facts had been stated in his complaint.

OP2 also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Sh Sandeep Sandhu, Regional Manager with OP2 and stated on oath that all the facts were rightly denied by them and their product had no manufacturing defect. 

 

Arguments were heard from both the parties at length and order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was admitted by OP that the said AC was purchased and was manufactured by OP2 and services were provided by their authorized service centre as soon as complaint was received and had no manufacturing defect.  

Complainant had not produced any evidence that the said AC had manufacturing defect and even during the pendency of his complaint before this Forum, no evidence of manufacturing defect was produced. In this case, there was only gas leakage problem which was refilled in time. Leakage of gas cannot be presumed as manufacturing defect for which replacement of said AC could be asked for.

 

As complainant has not submitted warranty card as evidence with any expert opinion to sustain his allegation of manufacturing defect in the said AC and as per various evidences annexed here as CW1/3 to 10, all pertains to the gas leakage and electricity fluctuations leading to damage to PCB which was too replaced by OP2. So there was no deficiency on the part of OP2.

 

Also OP1 who was a seller of the product, did not put his appearance, was proceeded Ex Parte. There was no evidence of selling defective product to the complainant. So OP1 was exempted for any liability.      

 

So, we are of the opinion that complainant could not prove the deficiency of services provided by OP2 and AC had any manufacturing defect. Thus, this complaint deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                              Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                            

                                                

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh President