CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.547/2010
MR. N.K. TOMAR, PARTNER OF
M/S. CHINTOOO CREATIONS,
PLOT NO. 295, PHASE-II,
UDYOG VIHAR, HARYANA,
S/O LATE RAM SINGH,
R/O 49, KAPASHERA ESTATE,
TOMER FARM
BEHIND FUN FOOD VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI – 110037
THOUGH HIS GENERAL POWER OF …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.
SERVICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE
LG ELECTRONICS (I) PVT. LTD.
A-27, MOHAN COOPERATIVE
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI – 110044,. …..RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-06.10.2010
Date of Order- 23.12.2022
O R D E R
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN-PRESIDENT
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP in non- rectification of cooling problem in an air conditioner. The complaint is filed by Mr. N.K. Tomar through General Power of attorney, Narender Singh.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a LG Air conditioner on 26.04.2006. The said AC worked till April 2010 but thereafter, stopped cooling abruptly. The complainant states that he lodged a telephonic complaint with OPs customer care department on 19.04.2010. As his complaint was not redressed, he sent another e-mail dated 21.04.2010 on customer care mail ID.
It is alleged that thereafter a person representing himself to be an engineer came and repaired the said air conditioner. The said air conditioner did not work even after repairs. The complainant made complaints on 26.04.2010 and 27.04.2010. In response to aforesaid complaint, one Mr. Rahul came and introduced himself as an engineer. After inspecting the air conditioner, he told the complainant that the compressor of the said air conditioner needs to be replaced. The air conditioner was taken to the work shop for repair. The air conditioner was received on 08.05.2010 but it stopped working again on 10.05.2010. It was repaired on the same day but it continued to be non-functional. Repeated e-mails were sent to OP but were not redressed.
It is alleged that the complainant has paid all the charges towards PCB and Capacitors on 25.04.2010 but the machine remained non-operational. The complainant had no other option but to purchase a new air conditioner on 16.06.2010 for Rs. 31,500/-. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 03.10.2010. The complainant prays for refund of Rs. 31,500/- towards the cost of new air conditioner and Rs. 68,500/- towards mental harassment and physical agony.
OP in its reply has stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as the product in question was purchased on 26.4.2006. OP has alleged that the air conditioner has been purchased for commercial purposes by M/s Chintoo Creation. OP has also denied all telephonic complaints by the complainant while specifically admitting e-mail dated 25.09.2010. OP has denied that complainant has suffered any hardship and convenience.
The complainant in its rejoinder has reiterated the contentions made in his complaint. It is stated that the air conditioner was purchased only for domestic use and hence the complaint is maintainable
The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:-
- The power of attorney is exhibited as Ex. CW1/1.
- Copy of invoice is exhibited as Ex. CW1/2.
- Copies of e-mails are exhibited as Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/4.
- Copy of legal notice is exhibited as Ex. CW 1/5.
- Postal receipts are exhibited as CW1/6.
The complainant has also filed a job sheet dated 27.04.2010. OP has also filed evidence by way of affidavit.
The commission has given a thoughtful consideration to material on record and contentions advanced by counsels of both the parties. It is admitted by both the parties that the air conditioner in question was purchased on 26.4.2006 and was functional till April 2010.The invoice dated 26.4.2006 is admitted by both the parties. Examination of the said invoice shows that the product was purchased by M/s Chintoo Creation for Rs. 14,400/-. The first question that arise consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable. The complainant has not clarified his relationship with M/s Chintoo Creation. In the memo of parties the complainant has identified himself as proprietor of M/s Chintoo Creations whereas the legal notice sent by complainant to OP shows that complainant is a partner in M/s Chintoo Creation. A proprietorship concern or a partnership firm is presumed to be constituted for commercial purpose. It was open to complainant to disprove this presumption. The complainant has not placed an iota of prove that M/s Chintoo Creation was not being run for commercial purpose or was covered under the exemption specified in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Even otherwise the job sheet dated 27.4.2010 shows that the product was out of warranty and was facing cooling problem. Thereafter, product was admittedly repaired and installed on 8.5.2013. Complainant has alleged payment for PCB (Printer Circuit Board) and capacitors but no bill/ receipt / invoice for PCB and capacitor or any payment towards repair charges has been placed on record. In fact, the complainant has failed to prove by producing any tangible evidence of an expert that the said air conditioner was non-functional after repair. The bald assertions of the complainant in the absence of any expert opinion or any proof of consideration for repair cannot be taken into consideration.
From the above observations, we find no merit in the present complaint and the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RITU GARODIA) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
