BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.191 of 2019.
Date of instt.:08.07.2019.
Date of Decision:07.11.2019.
Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Chander Parkash R/o H.No.332/1, Siwan Gate, Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Lavish Communication, Shop No.G-15, Lala Lajpat Rai Complex Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its proprietor/partner.
- M/s. Harman Care Centre, Karnal Road, 64, Nehru Garden Colony, near Padma City Mall, Kaithal through its prop./partner Amrik Singh, Mobile No.9050009471.
- Onida Care and Care Pipli District Kurukshetra through its prop./partner Gaurav Kansal, Mob.9991872000.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present : Sh. Dalbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased a Split AC 1.5 Ton of Onida Company from the Op No.1 for the sum of Rs.25,500/- vide invoice No.762 dt. 14.07.2018. It is alleged that in the month of March, 2019 due to fault in the said A.C. stopped to work and compressor of the said A.C. was damaged and the A.C. was not giving any cooling. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the complaint online on the website of the company and an employee/technical person came from the service-centre but he failed to remove the defects of said A.C. The complainant lodged complaint bearing No.1906F4063124 on 19.06.2019, complaint No.1906F406380129 on 20.06.2019 and complaint No.1906F4406380136 on 21.06.2019 but the Ops did not remove the defects from the said A.C. The complainant requested the Ops several times to repair or replace the said defective A.C. with the new one but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 19.08.2019.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the A.C. in question from the Op No.1 for the sum of Rs.25,500/- vide invoice No.762 dt. 14.07.2018. According to the complainant, in the month of March, 2019 due to fault in the said A.C. stopped to work and compressor of the said A.C. was damaged and the A.C. was not giving any cooling. The complainant lodged the complaint online on the website of the company and an employee/technical person came from the service-centre but he failed to remove the defects of said A.C. The complainant lodged complaint bearing No.1906F4063124 on 19.06.2019, complaint No.1906F406380129 on 20.06.2019 and complaint No.1906F4406380136 on 21.06.2019 but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainants.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application on 04.07.2019 for sending the A.C. for expert opinion and the said application was allowed by this Forum vide order dt. 17.09.2019. The expert namely Sh. Anil Kumar, Mechanic, Govt. I.T.I., Kaithal submitted his report Annexure-A in this Forum on 29.10.2019. We have perused the said report wherein the expert has mentioned that he checked the functioning of A.C. and found that the said A.C. was not working properly and cooling effect good but compressor cut out was very frequently. The said expert has also mentioned in his report that the working of above-mentioned product was found good but due to tripping problem cooling does not stay longer in the room and the above-mentioned fault can be repaired and gas pressure can be filled by refrigerant. By repairing the above product will work fine. So, from the said report of expert, it is clear that the A.C. was defective and the same is repairable. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure C3. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops were proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have not resolved the grievance of the complainant, hence, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly with costs and direct the OPs to repair the A.C. in question and to remove the tripping problem by filling the gas pressure by refrigerant free of cost. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation charges. It is further directed that the service engineer, who will repair the A.C. in question of the complainant shall submit a repair certificate to this Forum about repairing the A.C. in question after obtaining the satisfaction note from the complainant. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:07.11.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
