BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 548 of 2015
Date of Institution: 03.09.2015
Date of Decision: 01.08.2016
Tarsem Lal Saini son of Shri Chuni Lal Saini, resident of 24, Shori Nagar, P.O.Rayon Silk Mills, Chheharta, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- L.G.Electronics India (P) Limited, through its Sales Manager, service through Arjun & Sons, Hall Bazar, Amritsar.
- Arjun & Sons, authorized dealer in LG Products through its partner/ prop. Hall Bazar, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Tarsem Lal Saini has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is consumer as defined under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the present complaint is filed on account of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. The complainant purchased one LG Air Conditioner 1.5 split type of 5 Star Model made of Opposite Party No.1 from its authorized dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.2. The complainant purchased the AC in dispute vide bill No. 9076 dated 9.5.2011 for a sum of Rs.33,000/- with the guarantee/ warranty of its compressor for a period of 5 years. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have given defective AC to the complainant and further has not given proper service to the complainant inspite of repeated requests and demands which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Last year again some defect developed in the said AC and the complainant moved to Opposite Party in the first week of May, 2014, but the Opposite Party did not send their service man in time, rather sent the same after a gap of one month approximately. Opposite Parties sent their mechanic from Authorised Service Centre i.e. Golden Service 224 Guru Arjun Dev Nagar, Dilawari Street, Putlighar, Amritsar. After checking the said AC, it was told by the mechanic to the complainant that some inner defect has developed in the compressor of the said AC and the same is required to be removed. The concerned mechanic of the said service centre after making some repair unnecessary charged a sum of Rs.2000/- from the complainant against receipt No. 711 dated 30.5.2014 for refilling gas whereas it was not legally permissible for him to charge any penny as thee was a guarantee/ warrantee of five years in the compressor of AC in question and the complainant under the compelling circumstances had to pay the same. At that time, it was assured by said mechanic that defect has been removed and the complainant bonafide believing version to be true paid Rs.2000/-. On the very next day, again said AC went out of order. The complaint was moved but till date right from June, 2014 the defect has not been removed and the AC in question is lying just a waste thing for the last more than one year and the Opposite Parties showed their inability to remove the defect in the AC in question. The Opposite Parties are legally bound to remove the defect or in alternative to replace the AC with new one for which the complainant many times made requests, but the Opposite Party failed to accede the genuine and legitimate request of the complainant. The aforesaid act on the part of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
a) Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to replace the said defective AC with new one.
b) To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
c) To pay costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.
d) The complainant may be granted any other relief to which he is found entitled to under law and equity.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed by invoking section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; as per the complainant own pleadings no complaint or defect was there in the warranty period and the present alleged defect is the damage caused by the own acts of the complainant which is out of warranty obligations and as such the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties, as the service centre is not impleaded as Opposite Party in the array of the Opposite Parties. On merits, purchase of the AC in question from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is the admitted fact. However, it is submitted that the complainant was given the product in proper manner and defect free and the complainant was given the prompt service when demanded and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, rather the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant made into the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of retail invoice Ex.C3, affidavit of Santokh Singh Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
4. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Manmeet Singh, Area Service Head Ex.Op1,2/1, affidavit of Gagandeep Ex.OP1,2/2, copy of job report Ex.Op1,2/3, copy of job report Ex.Op1,2/4, copy of estimate Ex.Op1,2/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. On 12.12.2015 Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Parties suffered a statement that Opposite Parties are ready to repair the Air Conditioner of the complainant. Since the statement has been made voluntarily by ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties, the contention in the written statement that AC in question was beyond warrantee/ guarantee period, is not entertainable. The grouse of the complainant also have been that no repair of the AC in dispute is being done by the Opposite Parties despite making requests on many occasions. In our considered opinion, the Opposite Parties are under legal obligation to effect necessary repairs to the AC in dispute as per the undertaking given by their counsel in the Forum. Consequently, the Opposite Parties are directed to repair the LG Air Conditioner 1.5 split type of 5 Star Model belonging to the complainant to his satisfaction without charging any amount from him. The complainant is directed to hand over the AC in question to Opposite Parties within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and Opposite Parties shall repair the AC of the complainant within further period of one month there from, to the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount from the complainant. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 01.08.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
