BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.252 of 2015
Date of Instt. 10.6.2015
Date of Decision : 15.12.2015
Gurjeet Singh aged about 47 years son of Joginder Singh R/o 31-A, Maharaja Garden, Basti Peer Dad, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Kalra Refrigeration & Electricals, 15-Sanjay Gandhi Market, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City.
2. E.TA General Pvt Ltd., ETA House, 71/63, 3rd Floor, Opp.Loyola College, Sterling Road, Nungambaakkam, Chennai-34, through its General Manager.
3. ETA General Pvt Ltd., SCO 2475-76, 2nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager/Incharge.
4. M/s Capital First Ltd., India Bulls Finance Centre Tower-II, 15th Floor, Senapati Bagpat Marg, Mumbai, through its General Manager.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Naveen Chhabra Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.GS Bhatti Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.
Opposite parties No.1 & 4 exparte.
Order
Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
1. Complainant Gurjeet Singh filed the present complaint against Kalra Refrigeration & Electricals, 15-Sanjay Gandhi Market, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City etc opposite parties (OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency, negligence in service and unfair trade practice and directing the OPs to refund the price of the AC alongwith interest, Rs.20,000/- as damages, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings on the allegations that on persuasion of OP No.1, complainant purchased a Air Conditioner (AC) make 'O General' from dealer OP No.1 which was manufactured by OP No.2 manufacturer having area office at OP No.3 and which was financed by OP No.4 on 6.4.2015 and paid Rs.31,790/- vide receipt No.13 dated 6.4.2015 in the name of the complainant; that complainant gave his residential address to OP No.1 and AC was installed but when complainant checked the performance of the AC, it was not giving required cooling and thereupon complainant informed OP No.1 regarding the defect in the working of the AC and OP No.1 referred the complainant to service centre of OP No.2 but neither OP No.1 nor the service centre of OP No.2 attended the complainant properly even on his repeated visits and requests and then complainant filed a complaint on email to OP No.2 on 5.5.2015 and also contacted service centre of OP No.2 on telephone but instead of attending the complaint, OP No.2 cancelled the same; that complainant again contacted OPs No.1 & 2 for getting defect removed and then a mechanic was deputed by OP No.2 who filled the gas in the AC but complainant was shocked when the AC worked properly only for one hour and thereafter cooling decreased and complainant again informed OP No.1 and also OP No.2 on email and then OPs No.1 & 2 deputed mechanic on 14.5.2015 for rectification of the defect and mechanic changed the copper wire by opening wall and also filled the gas in the AC but AC was not giving proper cooling even in the presence of mechanic and then mechanic told the complainant that it have a manufacturing defect and coil of internal unit is required to be changed; that then complainant was compelled to serve a legal notice on the OPs for not removing the defect in the AC and also for humiliation and harassment suffered by him after the purchase of AC and then OP again deputed mechanic who changed the wiring of the AC from outer unit to inner unit but with no effect and then mechanic left without making the AC functioning properly and it shows that the AC is required to be replaced; that the conduct of the OPs is improper and AC have a manufacturing defect and OPs have adopted unfair and deceptive trade practices which caused harassment, mental agony and hardship to the complainant during summer days, hence complaint was filed.
2. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs and OP no.1 appeared in person and filed reply admitting that OP No.1 sold one AC make 'O General' to complainant which was supplied by company on commission basis for sale and company is responsible for all the complaint and equipments etc and company gave assurance to OP No.1 on the basis of which, OP No.1 gave assurance to the customer.
3. OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and complainant have no locus-standi to file the complaint against the answering OPs as the AC was installed as per terms and conditions of the sale and is working properly to the satisfaction of complainant. On merit, the sale of AC and complaints filed by complainant with the dealer and OP No.2 were not specifically denied rather admitted as a matter of record. It was asserted that answering OPs have done their job properly and effectively and to the satisfaction of the complainant and defect pointed out by the complainant has been removed and now AC is working properly and effectively to the satisfaction of the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on part of answering Ops though other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. After filing reply by OP No.1, OP No.1 absented in the proceedings on 13.11.2015 and OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide detailed order dated 13.11.2015.
5. Notice was issued to OP no.4 who was declared to have duly served for 21.7.2015 but neither OP No.4 nor anybody on its behalf appeared in the Forum and consequently OP No.4 was proceeded against exparte vide detailed order dated 21.7.2015.
6. Adequate opportunities were given to the OPs for leading evidence in order to prove their respective case.
7. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2&3/A alongwith documents Ex.OP2&3/1 and Ex.OP2&3/2 and closed evidence.
9. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that he purchased AC from OP No.1 dealer which was manufactured by OP No.2 and was financed by OP No.4. He contended that he purchased the AC in April 2015 but immediately after its installation, he found that it was not giving proper cooling and he informed the OP but OP did not take the complaint seriously and did not remove the fault inspite of many requests of the complainant and even repeated visits of the complainant to the OPs and as such the complaint is liable to be allowed and complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.
11. The learned counsel for the OPs contended that the OP immediately attended the complaint of the complainant on its receipt and removed the fault immediately and as such now no cause of action subsist to the complainant and complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant admitted that presently the fault has been removed by the OPs and AC is now working properly but AC remained out of order for about 2 ½ months when the summer season was at its peak and during that period, complainant suffered too much due to non working of the AC and as such the complainant is entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience and ordeal suffered by him during summer season and complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses as complainant had to file the complaint and only during its pendency, the AC has been repaired.
13. It is admitted fact that presently fault in the AC in question has been removed and now the AC is working properly. Now the only grievance of the complainant is that during summer season of 2 ½ months, the AC was not working and he suffered inconvenience and agony during that period and fault was removed only when he filed the complaint and as such he should be compensated for inconvenience and harassment. It is admitted case of the parties that AC remained out of order for 2 ½ months during summer season. It is natural that during summer season if the AC is not working then it would cause inconvenience and harassment to the complainant particularly when the OPs is not attending the complaint promptly and for the harassment and ordeal, complainant is entitled to be compensated by the OPs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and duration during which the AC remained out of order, this Forum is of the considered view that the balance of justice would struck if OP is burdened with Rs.3000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to be paid to the complainant.
14. In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with cost in favour of the complainant and against OPs No.1 to 3 and complainant is held entitled to recover Rs.3000/- as compensation and litigation expenses from the OPs No.1 to 3. OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Ashwani Kumar Mehta
15.12.2015 Member Member President