Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/219/2015

Rajan Kaushik S/o Raj Kishan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kamboj Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sourabh Bansal

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.219 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 07.07.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 07.09.2016.

Rajan Kaushik aged about 32 years son of Sh. Raj Kishan Sharma, resident of Shiv Colony, Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Kamboj Electronics, S.K.Road, Bubka Chowk, Raduar Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, through its proprietor/ Partner.
2. Saini Electronics, Raghunathpuri, Mittal Hospital Wali Gali, near Iskan Mandir, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/partner.
3. Room Air Conditioner Division Refrigeration Products & System Division Blue Star Limited, 9 Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017, through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

                       

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

             SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.           

 

Present: Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1. 

              Respondent No.2 ex-parte.

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.     

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Rajan Kaushik has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund Rs. 36,100/- cost of Air conditioner alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant purchased an Air Conditioner XXX star Blue Star Split  from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 for a sum of Rs. 36,100 vide bill No. 1427 dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure C-1). Since the very beginning, the said air conditioner started giving cooling problem and the said A.C. started noise and stopped to work properly and immediately the matter was reported to OP No.1 who directed the complainant to complaint on toll free No. 18002091177 of the company. The complainant made so many complaints through his mobile to the toll free No. 180020911177 vide ticket No. B1505230673 dated 23.05.2015, Ticket No. B1506030630 dated 03.06.2015 and  ticket No. B1506280387 dated 28.06.2015 and every time the Ops replied to the complainant through SMS that the official of the company will visit him and resolve his problem. An engineer visited the house of complainant and repair the said AC on 03.07.2015 but after two days the said A.C stopped working properly and the matter was again reported to the OP but they did not resolve the problem of complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs to return the amount of A.C. or replace the AC with new one but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to do any needful. So, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement separately whereas OP No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceded ex-parte vide order dated 28.08.2015.

4.                     OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by admitting the facts to the extent that the complainant purchased the A.C. from the OP No.1 vide bill No.1427 dated 10.09.2014 for a sum of Rs. 36,100/- including the V guard automatic stabilizer and stated that entire remaining facts of the complaint are totally wrong and manipulated one. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the OP No.1.

5.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action ever arose in favour of complainant; complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case and on merit it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the Air Conditioner on 10.09.2014 and first complaint was lodged by him on 23.05.2015 i.e. after expiry of around eight months and using the said product without any defect or complaint whatsoever, hence there was no manufacturing defect in the said product and same was attended by engineers on 25.05.2015 and found that only remote setting was wrongly used by complainant, which was rectified immediately and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Without prejudice and without admitting any allegations of the complainant herein, the OP No.3 is ready and willing to check the AC and in case there is any defect the same will be rectified by the OPs at no costs.     So there is no negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and document such as photo copy of bill of AC as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 stated at bar that he does not want to file any documents in his evidence,  so, the evidence of the OP No.1 was closed vide order dated 06.09.2016.

8.                     Counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Gupta, Authorized representative of Op No.2 & 3 as Annexure RW3/A and document such as Photo copy of special power of attorney as Annexure R3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

9.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. 

10.                   It is not disputed that complainant purchased an A.C. amounting to Rs. 36,100/- vide bill No. 1427 dated 10.09.2014 from Op No.1 manufactured by OP No.3, which is evident from the photo copy of bill Annexure C-1. The only version of the complainant is that during the currency of warranty period of one year,  Air Conditioner sold by OP No.1 and manufactured by Op No.3 stopped to work properly and the OPs failed to rectify the problems despite so many complaints, so, there is a deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

11.                   On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 hotly argued at length that a false complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate the OPs as the problem in AC was only remote setting and the AC was working on fan mode. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that service engineer of the OP No.2 checked the Air Conditioner of the complainant and found the same in perfect working condition. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the OPs are ready and willing to check the AC and in case there is any defect, the same will be rectified by the OP No.3 at no costs  and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.                   After hearing both the parties at length and going through the material on the case file, it transpires that the complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner XXX Star Blue Split AC from Op No.1 vide bill No.1427 dated 14.09.2014 for a sum of Rs. 36100/- as is evident from the photo copy of Bill Annexure C-1. The grievances of the complainant is that the AC did not work properly and stopped giving cooling during the warranty period and regarding this he had lodged oral as well as on line complaints with the OPs. From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that the OPs have come with the plea that the complainant has not pin point specific defect in the AC but this plea is not sustainable because the main purpose of the product such like AC is to provide cooling and when it stopped cooling then the very purpose of the product cannot be served. the complainant has lodged complaint on toll free number vide ticket No. B1505230673 dated 23.05.2015, Ticket No. B1506030630 dated 03.06.2015 and  ticket No. B1506280387 dated 28.06.2015 and Ops have not denied this fact either in reply or in the affidavit that the complainant has never lodged any complaint with them with regard to the abovesaid defect. The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, Air Conditioner has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different modes of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer.

13.                   The pleading and contention put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted as the OP No.2 service Centre did not join the proceedings of the case and opted to remain ex-parte.

14.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

15.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to remove the defect in the Air Conditioner, if any, to the satisfaction of the complainant free of costs and further the OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.07.09.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.