BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.448 of 2015
Date of Instt. 15.10.2015
Date of Decision: 13.06.2017
Tarun Kumar S/o Dharamveer aged about 44 years, R/o 75/4, Green Model Town, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Katyal Agencies, through its authorized signatory Ashu Katyal, Opposite R.K. Dhaba, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
2. MIRC Electronics Ltd, through its authorized signatory, Onida House, G-1, M.I.D.C, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093.
3. Onida Service Center, House No.163, 3rd Floor, Ranjit Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.
….… Opposite parties
.
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv Counsel for complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. Rajneesh Khanna,Adv and Sh. Sahil Khanna, Adv Counsel for OP No.2 and 3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant relying on the assurance of the OP No.1 regarding good quality of Onida AC and purchased an Onida Split AC vide invoice bearing No.63 dated 16.04.2015 from the OP No.1. The OP No.1 assured the complainant of the best quality of services. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the said AC started giving problems to the complainant after a few days and AC failed to provide any cooling despite kept on for many hours. The complainant approached the OP No.1 personally and to Ashu Katyal on mobile number 98150-74745 and report the grievance faced by the complainant to the OP No.1, firstly the OP No.1 put off the complainant with one pretext or another and after repeated and reminders the OP No.1 listened to grievances faced by the complainant and assured that the problem faced by the complainant will be soon rectified. But to the utmost surprise even after the assurance of the OP No.1, no one came to rectify the grievance faced by the complainant regarding the non cooling of AC in question. When the service staff of the OP No.2 visited the complainant they filled the gas in AC in question, even then they failed to remove the problem faced by the complainant and they said that AC is defective in quality. On 11.08.2015, the complainant even lodged complaint bearing No.1508108638076 with customer care of the OP No.2 and the customer care assured of removal of the grievances faced by the complainant within 48 hours. Even after the representative of the OP No.2 failed to rectify the defect in AC in question. On 13.08.2015, the complainant again lodged a complaint with customer care but with no positive result.
2. That on 20.08.2015, the service staff of the OP No.2 again approached the complainant and assured the complainant that if they will be allowed to take the AC in question to their service center they will rectify the problem faced by the complainant regarding non cooling by AC in question. On 22.08.2015, when the service staff of the OP No.2 reinstalled the AC in question, the same was not providing any cooling. On 26.08.2015, the complainant again approached the customer of the OP No.2 but that failed to yield any result. The complainant paid heavy amount on the purchase of AC in question despite all this problems which the complainant were facing were never rectified as there is manufacturing defect in AC in question which was supplied to the complainant. Prior to filing the present complaint, the complainant served a legal notice dated 26.08.2015 to the OPs but no reply was given by the OPs. The OPs have supplied AC with manufacturing defect to the complainant and have practiced unfair trade practice with the complainant. The complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount i.e. Rs.29,000/- along with 12% interest from the OPs and also entitled for compensation of Rs.70,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly OP No.1 served but despite service OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately it was proceeded against exparte.
4. Whereas OP No.2 and 3 filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint by admitting that the complainant purchased Onida Split AC on 16.04.2015 and also admitted that the complainant lodged a complaint on 11.08.2015 in regard to service of the said AC and accordingly Mr. Ravinder Singh, Technician was appointed to go and check the AC and accordingly he checked the AC and found perfectly OK but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet despite request and further alleged that the installation of the product as purchased by the complainant was installed in a bigger size room which require the AC to the capacity of 2.5 ton, whereas the complainant purchased AC of 1.5 ton and the remaining contents of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and then closed the evidence
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. After considering the over all circumstances, we find that the purchase of Onida Split AC vide invoice No.63 dated 16.04.2015, for a sum of Rs.29,000/- is admitted fact because it is not denied by OP No.2 and 3 and the question remains only whether there is any manufacturing defect in the said AC or not. For that purpose, the complainant placed on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA, whereby reiterated the entire story as detailed in the complaint. Apart from that, the complainant also proved on the file a legal notice Ex.C2 given to the OP for informing that there is a mechanical defect in the AC.
9. To the contrary, to rebut the version of the complainant, OP has brought on the file affidavit of Varinder Maggo, Authorized Representative of OP No.2 and 3 i.e. Ex.OP/A, except this affidavit, no other document has been brought on the file by the OP.
10. If we analyze the respective version of both the party, then we find that the plea taken by the OP is only that the complaint was received on 11.08.2015 and accordingly Mr. Ravinder Singh, Technician was appointed to go and check the AC and accordingly who checked the AC and found it perfectly 'OK' but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet despite request and further took a plea that the room wherein the said AC has been installed is a bigger size which requires an AC of the capacity of 2.5 ton, whereas the complainant has installed 1.5 ton AC and as such there is a problem of cooling but in order to prove this version, the best remedy with the OP is only to examine the said Technician Mr. Ravinder Singh, who is the appropriate and best person to disclose and describe in this case that the AC was in perfect condition and also explain the reason for not giving the proper cooling i.e. the size of the room is big but for the best known reason the OP has not examined the said appropriate person i.e. Technician and in the absence of the evidence of that Ravinder Singh, the plea taken by OP is not established. Whereas the version of the OP is established from the admission of the OP in written statement that the complaint has been received in regard to not giving a proper cooling and when ball goes to the Courtyard of the OP then duty casted upon the OP to discharge that duty but obviously the OP has failed to discharge the said duty and under these circumstances, we have no option except to admit the version of the OP that there is a major defect in the AC in question and accordingly hold that the complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
11. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the amount price of the AC i.e. Rs.29,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 16.04.2015 till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
13.06.2017 Member President
