DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of May 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing : 12/08/2013
CC No.132/2013
K.Madhavan Nair,
Sagarika, Sreerangam Gardens,
Chandranagar (PO),
Palakkad – 678 007 - Complainant
(By Party in Person)
V/s
Kannan Karuthedathu,
Cool Point,
24/624, Behind Sastha Temple,
Nurani Post, Palakkad – 04 - Opposite party
(By Mariam A Rahman)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.K.P.SUMA, MEMBER
The Case of the complainant is that on 25/5/2012 the complainant had contacted the opposite party for repair/service of his Home Air conditioner make LG(Split)model LSA19TIRDE2. Based on the above request the opposite party, along with his technicians attended and carried out service/repair of the set. On completion of repairs, though the complainant was not satisfied with the performance, the opposite party told that it will work normal after a few hours and if any problem persists advised to contact him. On this occasion opposite party collected Rs.3,250/- as service charge including the charges for gas filling in the set and no receipt was issued for the same. After four days i.e. on 30/05/2012 the set was not working satisfactorily. The opposite party visited again and informed that the compressor is defective and the same has to be replaced. The opposite party dismantled the outdoor unit for necessary repairs at his work shop and collected rupees 8,500/- as advance payment for replacement of compressor and repair of the outdoor unit. After 10 days the opposite party brought the unit back and installed it. He collected Rs.1,800/- as service charge in addition to Rs.8,500/- collected as advance. Opposite party also convinced that it is due to humidity that the performance was not satisfactory and after a few hours of working it will work satisfactorily. Complainant asked him to give the guarantee card and bill for the new compressor which the opposite party claimed to have replaced. Opposite party informed that he forgot to bring the same and will handover within two days. After one week the complainant contacted the opposite party again for the bill and guarantee card and he assured that the same would be forwarded within one week. In between the air conditioner was not working. On May 2013 complainant contacted the opposite party stating the status of the set. Opposite party again attended the job on 10/5/2013, and after inspecting the set he informed that the compressor is defective. When the complainant informed him that the new compressor was installed by him in June 2012 (less than a year back) the opposite party informed him that he would contact the supplier of the compressor and ask him to replace the compressor (under guarantee). He dismantled the outdoor unit and transported to his workshop for repairs. After 6 days the unit was brought back and informed that the compressor is replaced under guarantee and the set was installed. On starting the set the complainant noticed that it was not working satisfactorily. He demanded for the guarantee card and bills and the opposite party told him that it is misplaced in his office and will handover within two days. In the meantime, the complainant contacted the manufacturer of the unit (LG Electronics P.Ltd. Mumbai) and asked for technical expertise. They advised him to contact their local office in Palakkad. On complainant’s request the service technicians from LG Electronics (Pvt.Ltd.) Palakkad attended the job. They dismantled outdoor unit and transported to their workshop. Upon opening the unit they informed the complainant that the compressor is old and needs replacement. They completed the job on 31/5/2013 and the complainant had to pay Rs.11,563/- including cost of new compressor. The set is presently working satisfactorily. On 31/5/2013 the complainant contacted the opposite party and informed him all details and asked him to refund at least the amount of Rs.8,500/- which he collected for the purchase of new compressor. On this occasion, he confess that he had not replaced the compressor and ready to return the amount within two days. Thereafter he kept on postponing the dates for payment by means of SMS or phone calls. Finally on 13/7/2013 the complainant approached Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad for filing a complaint. The Sub Inspector of police contacted the opposite party over telephone. He informed the SI of Police that he would appear before him on 16/7/2013. On 16/7/2013 the opposite party reported to the police station, however the SI of police was not in the station. The opposite party informed the complainant that he will pay the amount by 5th August 2013 and is ready to give it in writing. The complainant agreed for the same and he gave a statement in writing. Till date opposite party had not refunded the amount and kept on postponing the date for payment by means of SMS or Phone calls. Hence, the complainant had approached before this Forum stating that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and claiming an amount of Rs.16,996/- from the opposite party.
Complaint admitted and issued notice to opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the averments and allegations in the petition.
On 25/5/2012 the complainant had never approached the opposite party with any complaints for repairing the air conditioner mentioned in the complaint. The further allegation that the respondent had taken Rs.3,250/- from the complainant was denied by the opposite party. The opposite party had repaired air conditioner of the complainant and after repairing the same had worked without complaint for one year. After repairing he had handed over the bill and the guarantee card to the complainant and when the air conditioner after the expiry of the guarantee period developed complaints. The complainant made up a cock and bull story and had filed a false complaint before the SI of Police, Kasaba. As the complainant is a man of high influence and using his muscle and money power had made this opposite party to sign in the blank white papers from the Police station. The only amount this opposite party had received from the complainant is Rs.3,000/- being the service charges of the opposite party. Rest of the allegations is totally denied by the opposite party and they do not owe any amount to the complainant. Therefore there is no question of requesting or postponing the dates for payment as stated in the complaint. The amount shown in the complaint is false and concorted for the sake of filing this complaint. Complaint is filed with malafide intentions and is false, vexatious and frivolous and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief claimed in the complaint.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 was marked from the side of the complainant. Opposite party did not filed any affidavit. Heard the complainant.
We have perused documents produced before the Forum. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by opposite party on 30/05/2012 and signed by the opposite party. It is obvious from Ext.A1 that opposite party had received an amount of Rs.8500/- from the complainant for the replacement of the compressor. It is also endorsed that opposite party requires a week period for the repair of the A/C unit. From Ext.A3 it is revealed that complainant had approached the service centre for the rectification of A/C unit and had paid an amount of Rs.11,563.18 according to Ext.A4 document for changing the compressor. If the opposite party had replaced the compressor it should not have turned defective within a year. Moreover from Ext.A2 it is evident that opposite party had admitted that he shall refund Rs.8500/- on or before 5/8/2013. If the document was executed under force or coercion, opposite party ought to have taken steps against its execution. No evidence is brought before the Forum to prove that opposite party had initiated any complaint against the execution of A2 document. When the A/C unit was opened at the authorized service centre it was found that compressor is very old and it had to be replaced. The complainant submits that no guarantee or bills were given by the opposite party when the AC unit was returned after repairing. Hence, we are of the view that complainant’s case is more probable and the AC unit was not properly serviced by the opposite party at the time of entrustment. In the light of above circumstances, we attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party had collected the amount without repairing or replacing the compressor. In the above circumstances the complaint is allowed. Hence we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.11,563/- (Rupees Eleven thousand five hundred and sixty three only) to the complainant being the cost of repair of the AC service unit beared by the complainant alongwith Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest per annum for the aforesaid amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of May 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1 – Receipt from the opposite party for the cash advance paid for compressor
replacement
Ext. A2 – Statement signed by the opposite party stating that the compressor had not
been replaced.
Ext. A3 - Job sheet from LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., Palakkad for repairs carried
out on same AC Unit
Ext. A4 - Invoice from LG Electronics I.Ltd, Palakkad for Rs.11563.18
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party : NIL
Cost allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
