DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No: 87/25.06.2008 Decided on : 23.1.2009 Tek Chand S/o Sh. Lachhman Dass S/o Sh.Kheta Ram, resident of Musey Wali Gali, Ward No.17, Near Park Road, Mansa. .....Complainant. VERSUS 1.L.G. Electronics (India) Private Limited, Registered Office Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida (U.P.) 2.Choudhary Electronics, Railway Road, Budhlada, Dealer L.G., through its Proprietor, Choudhary Electronics, Budhlada. .....Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.V.K.Goyal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Tek Chand son of Sh. Lachhman Dass, resident of Musey Wali Gali, Ward No.17, Near Park Road, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against L.G. Electronics (India) Private Limited, Greater Noida (U.P.) and M/s.Choudhary Electronics, Budhlada, on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That on 23.6.2007, deceased father of the complainant, purchased, an Air Conditioner (window), vide bill No. 1536, for Contd.......2 : 2 : consideration of Rs.15,300/-. The father of the complainant, named above, has expired, on 3.8.2007 and he has inherited his property, through registered will and he is also his legal heir, as such, the complainant is consumer, qua the said air conditioner, under the opposite parties, who had given guarantee for proper functioning of the same for a period of 5 years. The air conditioner, purchased by the deceased father of the complainant, was installed, on the first floor of his residential house, at Mansa and stopped cooling about two months, prior to the filing of the instant complaint, on 25.6.2008 and started creating heavy noise. The complainant, approached the OP No.2 and he lodged the complaint, but the opposite parties, continued to prolong the matter, for a period of two months, stating that mechanic of the opposite parties, has been called by them for removal of defect in the air conditioner. The complainant continued to contact the opposite parties, for doing the needful, but no action, has been taken, till the date of filing of the complaint. The doctor, who had been treating the mother of the complainant, advised that she be kept in air conditioned room, because of excessive heat prevailing in the area. The children of the complainant are also studying in school, who, for want of the air conditioner, could not concentrate on their studies and other members of the family, could not enjoy the benefit of cool air. The complainant, has made complaint, to Sh.Surjit Singh and Sh.Sanjay Suden, but instead of listening to the grievance of the complainant, provided him with shady treatment before they finally refused to take any action, although the fault in the air conditioner, was detected during the period of guarantee, given by the opposite parties. The above named officials of the opposite parties also told the complainant, that if such types of complaints, are entertained by them, then their company would go bankrupt, as such, there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, because of which, they are liable to replace the air conditioner and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and costs incurred by him for Contd.......3 : 3 : filing the complaint in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that this Forum, has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint; that complaint, is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act, because his father, who has purchased the air conditioner, from them, has since expired; that complaint is stopped from its own act and conduct, to file the present complaint, as he has failed to make payment of service charges, for detection and removal of defect, in the air conditioner; that complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted, that deceased father of the complainant, had purchased the air conditioner from the opposite parties, but it is denied that any guarantee was given to him. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions, contained in the Manual, published by the supplier, for the benefit of the owners, warranty is given to each purchaser for a period of 12 months on all parts, except front grill and plastic parts and additional warranty is given for a period of 4 years, on the compressor of the air conditioner manufactured by the L.G. Company. It is submitted that the air conditioner was sold to the deceased father of the complainant, on 23.6.2007 and he has filed the instant complaint on 25.6.2008, and has failed to pay the service charges, on demand, being raised by the opposite parties. It is further contended, that complaint No.203 dated 24.6.2008, was received by the opposite parties, through a dealer carrying on his business at Mansa, and was taken up for consideration on 25.6.2008, by the opposite parties with the advise to the complainant, to make payment of service charges, but he did not gave his consent. It is submitted that L.G. Company is known for its reputation, through out the country for production of quality Contd.......4 : 4 : goods and rendering of services to the consumers and there is no provision for replacement of the air conditioner, unless some manufacturing defect is detected. It is denied that air conditioner of the complainant, started creating noise and stopped cooling the air, two months prior to the filing of the complaint. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit and copies of documents Ext.C-1 to C-4 before his counsel closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered only copy of documents Ext.OP1 and OP2 before he closed his evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant Sh.V.K. Goyal, Advocate, has submitted that the opposite parties have not denied that the complainant had filed a complaint regarding the defect in the air conditioner purchased by his deceased father, but they have failed to depute any technical person to inspect the air conditioner at the premises of the complainant or to take any remedial action, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part. Learned counsel, has argued that members of the family of the deceased, has suffered during the summer season due to excessive heat and have failed to enjoy the fruits of heavy amount spent by the father of the complainant, as such, the opposite parties, are liable, to pay compensation and costs for the amount incurred by the complainant for filing the instant complaint, as prayed for. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate, has drawn our attention, to Owners Manual, published by the L.G. Electronics Private Limited, supplied to each buyer of the air conditioner, wherein it is provided that warranty is given on air Contd........5 : 5 : conditioner sold by the company for a period of 12 months on all parts, except front grill and plastic parts and thereafter 4 years , additional warranty is given on the compressor, from the date of purchase of the product, provided , it is purchased from authorized dealer and said fact is proved from the warranty card which shall bear rubber stamp. It is also submitted that during the warranty period only parts replaced or repaired shall be free of costs, but service charges shall always be payable by the customer. Learned counsel has submitted that complaint, has been filed, within the warranty period and complainant, has failed to prove any defect, in the compressor and, has refused to bear the service charges, on being demanded, by the opposite parties. Learned counsel, has denied that air conditioner purchased by the complainant is not functioning or cooling the air. Learned counsel further submitted, that complainant, has not produced on record any documentary proof showing the sickness of his mother or advice rendered by his doctor or that his children and family members, have suffered due to defect in the air conditioner, as such, complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. It is admitted case of the parties that Sh.Lachhman Dass, father of the complainant, has purchased the air conditioner, from the opposite parties, in the sum of Rs.15,300/-, vide bill No.1536, Ext.C-4, on 23.6.2007. There is nothing mentioned in this bill, as to if, warranty or guarantee, was given for any specific period, by the opposite parties, to the deceased father of the complainant, at the time of its purchase. The case of the complainant is that the air conditioner, purchased by his father, started creating noise and stopped cooling air, within the guarantee period, but the complainant, has not produced any document showing that guarantee was given by the opposite parties for proper functioning of the air conditioner for some period. However, as per copy of owners manual, placed on record by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, in the course of arguments, warranty on L.G. Air Conditioner is given for a period of 12 Contd.......6 : 6 : months on parts except front grill and plastic parts and thereafter 4 years , additional warranty is given on the proper functioning of the compressor. It is further provided that during the warranty period, only parts may be placed or repaired free of costs, but service charges shall be borne by the customer. In the absence of any other evidence, to the contrary, the plea of the complainant, cannot be accepted, that any guarantee was given, for proper functioning of the compressor of the air conditioner, by the opposite parties. It appears that use of word 'guarantee' in the complaint is a misnomer and, has been confused with the word 'warranty'. As observed earlier, the deceased father of the complainant, purchased the air conditioner, from the opposite parties, on 23.6.2007. In the written version filed by the opposite parties and in affidavit Ext.OP-1 of Sandhir Choudhary, it is admitted that complaint No.203 was lodged by the complainant, on 24.6.2008, through local dealer at Mansa. The opposite parties, have also produced, Daily Call Register Ext.OP-2, containing the entries at Srl.No.203 of dated 24.6.2008, regarding filing of complaint by the complainant regarding defect in his air conditioner. In the column of nature of complaint, it has been mentioned, in the said document, that repair of defect in the air conditioner falls, within the power of the Company concerned i.e. OP No.1. However, the opposite parties, have also taken the plea that it did not depute its engineer or technical person capable of detection of fault in the air conditioner sold to the father of the complainant, because he refused to bear the service charges. Since the mechanical engineer, has not visited the premises of the complainant, to detect the defect, for want of payment of service charges, or some other reason, therefore, it cannot be said, as to which part of the air conditioner, installed in the premises of the complainant, is defective, and definite finding cannot be given as to, if any specific part of the air conditioner needs replacement and is within the warranty period or not . 9. Learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted in the Contd.......7 : 7 : course of arguments that the complainant is willing to bear the service charges, provided, the engineer or technical person visit his premises to check the defect in the air conditioner purchased by his father. The opposite parties, have not produced any evidence, to establish that the complainant, has refused to bear the service charges, but the defect can only be detected after carrying out inspection of the air conditioner installed in his premises. Therefore, there is is no escape from holding that 'there is deficiency in service' on the part of the opposite parties regarding their obligation to remove the defect in the air conditioner, installed in the premises of the complainant. 10. The complainant has not produced any evidence regarding sickness of his mother and affect of non functioning of the air conditioner on the study of the children, but deficiency in service has been proved. Keeping in view the nature of goods, sold to the father of the complainant, it cannot be said, that no inconvenience is caused to the complainant, and members of his family, due to non functioning of the air conditioner, in summer season. As such, it is a fit case for award of compensation, on this score, to the complainant and also costs incurred by him for filing the instant complaint. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that legal heirs and user of services are 'consumers', within the purview of its definition, given in the Act and as per Section 2(b)(v) of the Act, the legal heirs or representative, in case of death of a consumer, can pursue the complaint, as such, widow of the complainant, has locus standi, to pursue the complaint, which has been filed, by the complainant, himself during his life time. In support of his contentions, learned counsel, has relied upon 2006(2) CPC SC 667 Mukesh Kumari (Minor & Dead) by Lrs versus M.Lal Oswal Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation & anr., wherein death of victim took place due to medical negligence. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that right to sue, would survive, to the legal heirs to Contd........8 : 8 : claim compensation from the opposite parties. It is further held, that in the present case, mother of the deceased, is already on the record, as such, she is entitled to claim compensation, even as a legal heir, and impugned order, was set aside and case was remitted back, for fresh decision. 12. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. The word 'complainant', has been defined in Section 2(b)(v) of the Act, as legal heir or representative, in case of death of a consumer. For the above said reasons and being fortified by the ratio of judgment delivered in the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, referred above, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant being son of the deceased consumer, is legal heir, within the purview of Section 2(b)(v) of the Act. The word 'complainant', has been defined in this Section, as legal heir or representative, in case of death of a consumer, who files the complaint. Moreover, the complainant has produced on record Registered Will, Ext.C-2 showing that his father Lachhman Dass, has purchased the air conditioner, from the opposite parties and he bequeathed his estate upon him. There is no rebuttal to this material evidence, produced on record, by the complainant. The above said Will, is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mansa. Therefore, we have no option, but to hold that complainant, has locus standi, to file the complaint and he falls, within the ambit of word 'consumer'. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties, to depute their Engineer or Technician, conversant with the functioning of the air conditioner, for inspection of the air conditioner, installed in the premises of the complainant, and to remove the defect, subject to payment of service charges, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 14. The opposite parties are also burdened, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and a sum of Rs.1,000/-, as costs, Contd........9 : 9 : for filing of the instant complaint. They are also directed, to pay the above said amount, within the above said period, to the complainant, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order 15. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 23.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
