DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                Consumer Complaint No.499 of 2015

                                                Date of institution:  06.10.2015                                         Date of decision   :  05.04.2017

Pritpal Singh resident of VPO Peer Sohana, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

                                                                  ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Indian Electronics, Authorised dealers through its Proprietor Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Dharampal, situated at Landran Road, Kharar, near P.N.B. Bank, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.     LLOYD Electric and Engineering Ltd., having its office at 159, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III, New Delhi 110020.

        Correspondence Address:

        Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019.

                                                      ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri S.S. Lakha, counsel for the complainant.

                None for OP No.1.

                Shri Surender Kumar, Assistant Manager for OP No.2

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Pritpal Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant had purchased the LLOYD 1.0 Ton 5 Star Rating air conditioner from OP No.1 on 19.06.2015 for Rs.27,000/- vide bill No.204 after getting it financed from Bajaj Finance. The complainant had paid Rs.9,000/- as advance money and rest of the amount was to be paid in 8 EMIs of Rs.2250/-. At the time of purchase, OP No.1 had given guarantee of one year of the AC.  From the very first day of its purchase, the air conditioner was not working properly as it was not giving proper cooling. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP No.1 and on the suggestion of OP No.1, the complainant made complaint No.20615354950 on 20.06.2015 at the service centre of OP No.1.  Then some workers/technicians visited the house of the complainant and after checking told that there is some major problem in the AC and assured the complainant that the problem will be rectified completely and that they will come again but no one came to the complainant. The complainant again made a complaint to the service centre of OP No.1 on 26.06.2015 and on 06.07.2015 and again some workers/technician came and after inspection told the complainant that there might be a problem of motor of the AC. The complainant told the technicians that the problem of non cooling occurred on the very first day of purchase and asked them to replace the AC with a new one as the AC is under guarantee period, who told the complainant to take up the issue with the company or the dealer from where the AC was purchased. Accordingly, the complainant asked OP No.1 and 2 to replace the AC with a new one as it is defective and was not working properly from day one of its purchase. Due to non cooling, the AC is running continuously without getting cut off which leads to more power consumption by the AC.  The complainant made complaints to OPs several times  and also sent a legal notice but the OPs have not replaced the AC.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs replace the faulty air conditioner with new one; to pay him Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs by filing separate replies. OP No.1 has pleaded that the complaint made by the complainant was forwarded to OP No.2 who had to do the needful for proper working of the air conditioner within the guarantee period. OP No.1 is not responsible to replace the air conditioner and only company is responsible for the same. OP No.1 is only a salesman and he is not responsible for any loss suffered by the complainant due to fault of OP No.2. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             OP No.2 in its separate reply has pleaded that the complainant has concocted a false and fabricated story to get undue favour from this Forum. It is denied that the AC was not working properly or not cooling properly. On receipt of notice from the complainant, OP No.2 deputed the service technician and on his visit the service technician found that the AC was running properly. The AC was checked in the presence of complainant who was fully satisfied but refused to sign the job sheet.  On 20.06.2015 the AC was duly checked and found to be running properly. However, on the persistent demand of the complainant the gas was changed. The capacity of 1 Ton AC is to give cooling effect in 100 sq.ft. area approximately. The complainant has installed the AC in a commercial shop. Since the door of the shop opens and closes time and again, therefore, the cooling in the shop gets effected. The AC was checked in the presence of the complainant and the same was run for ½ hour and it was found that at the time of starting the AC the room temperature was 33.5 degree centigrade and it was 29.5 degree centigrade after ½ hour. The grill temperature was 15.9 degree centigrade. As such the AC was running properly. There is no fault in the AC. On merits, OP No.2 has pleaded that when on the persistent demand of the complainant gas was changed, he signed the requisite job card in token of his satisfaction. The second complaint made by the complainant was also attended to and the AC was found in perfect running condition but the complainant did not sign the job sheet.  OP No.2 has denied that its technician has stated that the AC has the defect. The question of problem in the motor does not arise at all. There is no defect in the AC and as such question of replacement does not arise at all. The intention of the complainant is only to harass and cause loss to OP No.2. The AC can be checked and verified by calling the same before this Forum. Thus, denying any defect in the AC and deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has too sought dismissal of the complaint.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; legal notice Ex.C-2 and postal receipts Ex.C-3. In rebuttal, Surender Kumar, Assistant Manager of OP No.2 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/2.  After filing of reply on 15.01.2016 none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and evidence of OP No.1 was closed by order dated 10.10.2016

6.             It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that from the very first day of its purchase, the air conditioner had not been working properly as it was not giving proper cooling. On inspection of A.C. the workers/technicians of the OPs told that there might be a problem of motor in the A.C.  Learned counsel has argued that since the A.C. is new one and is under warranty, it should be got replaced with a new one and the complainant should also be compensated for the harassment and mental agony.

7.             On the other hand the authorised representative of OP No.2 has argued that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, the technician of the OP after checking found that the AC is running properly. He further submitted that the complainant was fully satisfied but he refused to sign the job sheet. The authorised representative has argued that there is no defect in the A.C. and it is running properly.

8.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard their oral submissions. The Hon’ble National Commission in case Mahender Kumar Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. & Anr. I (2017) CPJ 333 (NC) has held that where no expert evidence has been lead, it cannot be held that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect.  The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the A.C.  He has simply proved purchase of the A.C. vide bill dated 19.06.2015 Ex.C-1 and then placed on record the legal notice Ex.C-2. OP No.2 has taken a stand that its technician checked the AC and found it in perfect working condition. The complainant was satisfied but he refused to sign the job sheet.  Again on demand of the complainant, OP No.2 changed the gas of the A.C. It has been specifically pleaded by OP No.2 that the capacity of the AC is 1 Ton and it is to give cooling in an area of 100 sq. ft. approximately. The complainant has installed the AC in a commercial shop the door of which opens and closes time and again.  The complainant has no where pleaded in the complaint that he was mis-represented by OP No.1 that the AC will give proper cooling in the shop where it is to be installed.  Thus, we hold that the complainant has not been able to prove his case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             In view of our above discussion, the present complaint without having any merits, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 05.04.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member