Delhi

North East

CC/248/2016

RAJESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIN ELECTORNICS - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 248/16

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Rajesh Sharma S/o Murari Lal Sharma R/o:- H.No. 1/7699, Gali No. 2 East Gorakh Park, Shahdara East Delhi, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	Jain Electronics 1157A/3, East Rohtash Nagar Hanuman Road, Shahdara Delhi-110032   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada Pune-411006	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF DECISION :

23.09.2016 18.09.2020 18.09.2020

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President ( Addl. Charge)

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President ( Addl. Charge)

 

1. Case of the complainant made out in the present complaint is that he had purchased a 1.5 Tonne split Air conditioner (AC) of Voltas company bearing model no. 182 DY/ Sl. No. 4511816D14D000968 from OP1 on 11.06.2014 for a sum of Rs. 27,500/- vide invoice book no. 249/ Sl.No. 2412 on consumer durable loan availed from Bajaj Finserve on payment of EMIs of Rs. 2,481/- each. The complainant availed of extended warranty scheme of two years bearing no. OG-15-1000-6609-00042765 on the said AC from OP2 w.e.f. 09.06.2015 to 08.06.2017 on payment of Rs. 2,175/- as premium to OP2 for sum assured Rs. 26,500/-. The subject AC functioned for a short period and became dysfunctional in October 2015 after almost one and a half year of purchase for which complainant lodged a complaint with customer care of OP2 since it was covered under extended warranty scheme. An executive of OP2 came to the complainant’s premises  on 12.10.2015 and took the subject AC for repairs and reinstalled it after a week. However, the AC stopped working on the very day of its reinstallation despite repairs for which the complainant again contacted customer care of OP2 and the subject AC was again taken by OP2 for repairs and was reinstalled after 3-4 days. The AC worked till August 2016 and started giving problems again for which the complainant registered a complaint with OP2 upon which OP2 sent an executive of OP3 service centre, whose technician informed complainant of inner leakage in the subject AC and spoilt coil and told complainant that they would send pictures of the AC to OP2 for repair / replacement of parts and that the AC shall be repaired in next 4-5 days. The executive of OP3 also took    Rs. 500/- from the complainant. However, when the complainant called up the customer care of OP2, he was informed that the subject AC cannot be repaired for want of any instructions from OP2 and refused to repair the subject AC without assigning any cogent reason. The complainant faced difficulty without AC in the hot and humid weather of Delhi specially his pregnant wife  and after several calls and emails made to OP2 by the complainant in September 2016, he was informed that the AC purchased by him is of a different model no. 183CXI Sl. No. 4551600A13L020288 not covered under warranty and this caused mental harassment to the complainant, compelling him to file the present complaint against OPs praying for insurance of directions to OPs to refund the cost of the AC i.e. Rs. 27,500/- alongwith Rs. 2,175/- as premium paid for extension warranty alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as damages, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice, copy of consumer durable loan terms and conditions with extended warranty issued by Bajaj Finserv, copy of passbook of bank account held by complainant with P&SB highlighting EMIs to the tune of Rs. 2,481/- each paid by complainant to Bajaj Finserv from July 2014 till Feb. 2015, copy of extended warranty policy schedule dated 18.06.2014 issued by OP2 in favour of complainant for granting two years extended warranty with respect to AC bearing model no. 182DY and Sl. No. 4511816D14D000968 alongwith transcript of proposal for the said extended warranty valid from 09.06.20105 to 08.06.2017 on payment of premium of Rs. 2,175/-, copy of the Voltas Split AC sticker pasted on the AC for Model No. 183CXI Sl. No. 4551600A13L020288, copy of service job sheet dated 12.10.2015 with respect to  Model No. 182DY of reported problem of gas leakage and no cooling with complainant signature on product in satisfactory working condition, copy of service call report and challan dated 21.08.2016 issued by OP3 with respect to Model No. 183 CXI Sl. No. xxx20288 with charges of Rs. 500/- for gas and cooling coil and copy of emails written by complainant to OP2 in Sep. 2016 asking for repair.
3. Notice was issued to OPs on 04.10.2016. None appeared on behalf of OP1 despite service effected and was therefore, proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.02.2017. The complainant in hearing held on 30.03.2017 prayed for deletion of OP3 from the array of parties and accordingly OP3 deleted from array of parties in the present complaint and fresh Memo of parties was filed. OP2 entered appearance and filed its written statement vide which OP2 while admitting the complainant having purchased the subject AC bearing Model No. 182DY Sl. No. xxx968 from OP1 and OP2 having given extended warranty of the same valid from 09.06.2015 to 18.06.2017, took the preliminary objection that as per complainant’s own case the subject AC when reported giving problems by complainant to OP2, the same was repaired and installed in October 2015 as is evident from job sheet to the satisfaction of the complainant. OP2 urged that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands since when on his second complaint made in August 2016 the representative of OP3 had visited his premises to inspect the AC, he issued job card dated 21.08.2016 with respect to different model no. 183 CXI and Sl. No. xxx20288 which was different AC from the one insured / covered by OP2 under extended warranty scheme and the same stands proven by complainant’s own averments in his complaint of two different specifications of AC mentioned therein as 182DY 4511 xxx968 and 183CXI 455xxx288. Therefore, though the complainant had availed of extended warranty for only one AC purchased as Model No. 182DY, he tried to fraudulently get his another AC bearing model no. 183CXI repaired under warranty without having any extended warranty for the same. Therefore, OP2 prayed for dismissal of complaint on this ground alone by alleging fraud played upon by complainant. The OP2 further resisted the complaint on ground that when the technician of OP3 visited the residence of the complainant in August 2016, he had issued a job card of Rs. 500/- for gas filling and cooling coil for model no. 183CXI Sl. No. xxx20288 for the AC inspected whereas the AC covered under extended warranty bore model no. 182DY and Sl. No. xxx968 but complainant deceptively showed another insured AC  i.e. model no. 183CXI to the representative of OP3 trying to get the same repaired under warranty which also stands corroborated with complainant’s own admission that when he approached OP1 regarding complaint of the subject AC, he was told that this AC bearing Sl. No. xxx20288 and Model No. 183CXI was not the one sold by OP1 to the complainant and that the extended warranty was with respect to the AC bearing model no. 182DY sold by OP1 to the complainant. OP2 alleged that complainant has tried to make unlawful gains by deceiving OP2 and lodging a fraudulent claim and present complaint has been filed as a deliberate attempt to deceive the complainant the OPs and pressurize them to pay claim without any insurance cover. For the defence so taken by OP2, it prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant reiterating his grievance against OP2 and exhibited documents filed/ relied upon as Ex. CW1/1 to CW1/9.
5. OP2 filed its evidence by way of affidavit reasserting the defence taken in the written statement.
6. Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion of their respective grievance / defence.
7. We have heard rival contentions of both complainant as well as OP2 and have given a thoughtful consideration and keen perusal of documents placed on record by both sides.
8. Undisputedly, from the documents placed on record by the complainant it is evident that he had availed of extended warranty policy with respect to AC bearing model no. 182DY Sl. No. xxx968 from OP2 in June 2014 on payment of premium of Rs. 2,175/- and extended warranty was given by OP2 on the said model for a period of two years vide policy no. OG xxxx765 w.e.f. 09.06.2015 to 08.06.2017. The service job sheet dated 12.10.2015 for problem reported of gas leakage is also in respect of the subject AC model no. 182DY Sl. No. xxx9680. However, the subsequent job sheet dated 21.08.2016 pertains to a different model no. 183CXI Sl. No. xxx288 issued by OP3. On specific query put to the complainant regarding two different ACs of different specifications mentioned in two different job sheets of October 2015 and August 2018, his counsel submitted that the earlier AC with respect to which extended warrant was given by OP2 was replaced with a new one of a different model which explains two different model no. in the said two job sheets. In rebuttal to the stand taken by the complainant, counsel for OP2 submitted that the insured AC bearing model no. ending 182DY was never replaced by any other model but was always repaired and reinstalled and that the complainant had two ACs installed at his residence.
9. After having bestowed our anxious consideration and appreciation of the present complaint and rebuttal by OP2, we are of the considered view that the complainant has indeed not come into this Forum with clean hands and is trying to pass off an uninsured AC as the one on which was given extended warranty by OP2 to get the same repaired free of cost and when he failed to do so since his act was caught by OP2, he misused the legal machinery by filing the present complaint which is vexatious and frivolous and motivated to make unlawful gains by taking advantage of consumer protection law. Nowhere in his pleading has the complainant ever mentioned of replacement of the AC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in TATA Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhji (Radha Soami) IV (2013) CPJ 444 (SC) has observed that a person coming with unclean hands before a Court cannot expect relief. We, therefore, dismiss the present complaint under section 26 of CPA with cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on complainant to be deposited with Consumer Legal Aid. Let the order be complied with by the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation  21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on 18.09.2020

 

(Arun Kumar Arya) President(Addl.Charge)

(Sonica Mehrotra)     Member