BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  341 of 04.05.2016.                                                            Date of Decision: 21.02.2017.

Arun Singla s/o. Narsi Ram Singla, C/o. M/s. Singla Computer Arts, Dana Mandi, Near Arora Palace, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                       ..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Joy Air Conditioners, 44-45, Dholewal Flyover, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s. Mistubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., 3B, 3^rd Floor, Lotus Tower, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Munish Mittal, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. K.L. Kochar, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased AC of 1.1 ton of M/s. Mistubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. make for Rs.36,900/- including VAT and other charges from OP1. Few days after the purchase, AC faced problem because it was not giving proper cooling. OP1 was approached by complainant and he promised to do the needful by claiming that he will contact OP2.  Thereafter, service representative of OP visited house of complainant and checked the AC. Said service representative claimed that there is minor defect in AC and same will be removed. That defect was removed by the representative by claiming that AC will work well, but sometimes thereafter again AC continuously gave trouble. OP1 was again approached, who promised to send the service representative. Assurance was given that in case defect not removed, then AC will be replaced with new one. Thereafter service engineer of OP visited number of times the house of complainant, but the defect in the AC was not removed. Ultimately legal notice dated 07.11.2015 was served and thereafter, by pleading deficiency in service, this complaint filed with directions to Ops to change the defective AC with new one. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                OP1 is exparte in this case. OP2 M/s. Mistubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. impleaded after amendment of complaint. This newly impleaded OP2 appeared through Sh. K.L. Kochar, Adovcate.

3.                Today Sh. K.L. Kochar, Advocate produced on record the copy of job sheet showing that AC has been fully repaired to the satisfaction of the complaint. In view of this Sh. Munish Mittal, Advocate for complainant suffered statement that OPs have repaired the AC to the satisfaction of complainant and now dispute remains regarding award of compensation and litigation costs only.  Sh. K.L. Kochar, Advocate tendered documents Ex. Rx and closed evidence of OP2.

3.                Arguments heard and record gone though minutely.

4.                Perusal of complaint reveals that service engineer of OP had been visiting complainant for redressal of grievance and if that be the position, then it is not a case of total deficiency in service at all. Rather efforts were made by Ops to repair the AC. That AC in question has been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant on 12.12.2016 as per recorded statement of Sh. Munish Mittal, Adovcate and contents of job sheet Ex. Rx. Complainant suffered mental tension during the period in which AC was not repaired and as such, meager compensation for mental harassment alone required along with meager amount of litigation expenses, particularly when OP2 made efforts to repair the AC. Retail invoice shows that the gods sold under warrantee of manufacturer subject to terms and conditions of the warrantee. Being so warrantee to be provided by manufacturer.  If that be the position, then newly impleaded OP2 alone liable to pay the amount of harassment and litigation expenses, but not the dealer i.e. OP1.

5.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed against OP2 in terms that OP2 will pay compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees  One Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP2.  Payment of amount of litigation expenses and costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However complaint against OP1 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                    (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:21.02.2017.

Gobind Ram.