BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.177 of 2014

Date of Instt. 28.05.2014

Date of Decision :10.06.2015

Ramneek Anand aged about 37 years son of Satish Kumar Anand, R/o Flat No.J-401, Bellevue Green Apartment, Park Avenue, Mithapur-Kingra Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Kalra Refrigeration & Electricals, 15, Sanjay Gandhi Market, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. LLOYD Electric & Engineering Ltd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, through its Manager/Director/MD/ Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.VK Attri Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that on 28.5.2013 the complainant purchased split Air Conditioner, make LLOYD, model LS13A5L from opposite party No.1 for Rs.25500/- including complete installation charges vide bill No.199 dated 28.5.2013. Warranty of 12 months for split AC and 60 months for compressor of AC was given for the repair/ replacement of compressor with inspection by the opposite parties or by their authorized sale dealers. The opposite party No.1 did not send the authorized person of company for installation of above said AC but the opposite party No.1 sent their own paid untrained persons for installation of AC whereas the opposite party No.1 took the payment for authorized person to install the said AC. The above said AC should have been installed at the distance over 250mm from the wall but being untrained person of opposite party No.1 the said AC was not installed at accurate position. The said AC was installed by opposite party No.1 on 29.5.2013 and after three days from the installation the water started to leak from its indoor unit. A complaint on 4.6.2013 vide No.LEEL040613122206 was lodged with customer care of the company who sent their technical staff. The technical staff of the company told the complainant that the fitting of pipes and installation of the AC has not been done accurately. Due to installation of the said AC by untrained staff of opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that warranty automatically terminated in the event of said unit installed by any other/unauthorized person except authorized representative of the company. Due to installation of the said AC by unauthorized person of opposite party No.1, the warranty of AC has been terminated by the company. During the warranty period of 12 months of AC, the opposite party No.2 had to provide three free services. On 22.4.2014 the complainant requested the company vide request No.LEEL22041483253 for making service of the said AC. Although some persons of company came on 23.4.2014 but they refused to make the service of the AC saying that the installation of said AC has been got done from private person of opposite party No.1. Again on 23.4.2014 at 11.49 AM it was requested by complainant to customer care to make service but the service staff told the complainant that the service of the said AC would not be conducted due to installation of AC by private men of the opposite party No.1. The customer care told the complainant that the local staff of company would contact the complainant. After sometime Gagandeep Area Head Service called from his mobile phone No.9888408098 that he would talk with dealer and will get solve the problem of complainant and also told the complainant to refer with warranty terms and conditions para 3. The complainant asked the opposite party No.1 why they sent their private persons for installation of AC whereas the payment for trained/authorized representative of opposite party No.2 for installation of AC was given and due to this the warranty of the AC has been terminated by company. The complainant also asked the opposite party No.1 for the remaining four years warranty of compressor. The opposite party No.1 and area head service told and assured verbally the complainant that the warranty of remaining four years will be given but no writing was provided in this regard. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed directing the opposite parties to refund the installation charges and to provide warranty of remaining four years of the compressor or in the alternative to refund the cost of the AC as per bill. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant when purchased the AC from opposite party No.1 he was suggested by opposite party No.1 to install the AC from the authorized persons of the opposite party No.2 as per the norms and terms of the warranty card but he refused to do so and install the AC from his own sources, as such if any defect occurs the same is due to the installation of the AC by complainant and opposite parties are not liable for the same. AC was never installed by opposite party No.1. As per the terms of the opposite parties the warranty automatically terminated in the even of unit installed by the purchaser through his own sources. The defect arose as the fitting and pipes of AC are not properly installed. Opposite parties and complainant are bound by the terms of warranty card as such due to negligent act of the complainant, the company is not liable for anything. So question of oral assurance on behalf of the opposite parties does not arise. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant.

6. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the split AC from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 28.5.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.25,500/-. Ex.C2 are warranty terms and conditions. According to the complainant opposite party No.1 got installed the AC through its untrained person. According to complainant opposite party No.1 took the payment for installation of the AC from authorized persons of the company. Further according to the complainant, after three days from the installation the water started leaking from its indoor unit and complaint was lodged by him on 4.6.2013 with customer care of the company who sent their technical staff who told him that fitting of the pipes and installation of the AC has not been done accurately. On the other hand, both the parties are denying that the AC was installed by them. According to them, the complainant got installed the AC at his own level. There are two job sheets dated 4.6.2013 and 22.4.2014 on record. It appears to have been filed by the opposite parties alongwith authority letter given by company in favour of Bhupinder Singh on 13.11.2014. The above said authority letter and both the service job sheets were filed on 13.11.2014. In service job sheet dated 22.4.2014 against column of warranty status, "in warranty" is mentioned and against technician remarks dry service done is mentioned. So as per this document on 23.4.2014 the AC was treated to be within warranty period and service was done without receiving any payment as against the payment collected zero is mentioned. In service job sheet dated 4.6.2013 against warranty status, “in warranty” is mentioned and fault diagnosed is mentioned as drain problem, against technician remarks drain pipe adjusted working OK is mentioned. In case AC was out of warranty then the company should have not done the service or repair on 4.6.2013 and 22.4.2014. In both the service job sheets against warranty status, in warranty is mentioned. So opposite parties are estopped from saying that the AC is not within warranty and warranty terminated automatically as the AC was got installed by the complainant from some unauthorized person. So the opposite party No.2 can not refuse to provide the service to the complainant during warranty period. The warranty of the compressor shall be treated as five years as per terms and conditions of the warranty from the date of purchase. However, the warranty of AC besides compressor being of 12 months has already expired from the date of purchase i.e 28.5.2013. So no directions are required to be given in this regard. The complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party No.1 to refund the payment of installation charges. In the above circumstances of the case after the warranty period is over, no directions regarding refund of installation charges by opposite party No.1 to the complainant is required. As already observed above, the company attended to the complaint of the complainant on 4.6.2013 and 22.4.2014 as is evident from the above said job sheets on record.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and it is ordered that compressor of the AC shall carry warranty of five years from the date of purchase as per terms and conditions of the warranty. However, the complainant is granted Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses from opposite parties. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.06.2015 Member President