Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/62

Barinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LLOYD Electric and Engg. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Darbara Singh,Adv

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Barinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pass appropriate orders or directions,

ii)      The AC may be got replaced and the appropriate compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- may be awarded for the harassment & mental agony caused to him,

iii)     Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/- may be granted,

iv)     To award other costs or damages, as deemed fit & proper, in the interest of justice.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one AC make LLOYD Model No.FLS19A3P of LLOYD Electronics Limited on 13.5.2013 from the O.P. No. 3, after making payment of Rs.26,200/-, in cash, vide receipt No.3504 dated 13.5.2013, which was installed at his residence at Ropar, for his personal use, but just after a few days of its installation, the said AC started giving trouble as sometimes, it did not start functioning, despite switching it on. In case, it had ever started functioning, after some attempts, it did not function properly and did not give cooling effect. As such, various complaints were made to the company in that regard, the details of which are as mentioned below:-

                   i)       LEEL010613119713 dated 01.06.2013

                   ii)      LEEL280613143240 dated 28.06.2013

                   iii)     LEEL310713163526 dated 31.7.2013

                   iv)     LEEL220813174894 dated 22.08.2013

                   v)      LEEL060913184883 dated 06.09.2013.

 

          The complaint made on 01.06.2013 was regarding problem in the remote, which was treated by the O.P. as WASTE CALL, but he is unable to understand the meaning of WASTE CALL. On 28.06.2013, he complained the O.P. that an old remote was given to him and that the same had very less functions. On 31.7.2013, he again requested the O.P.  to provide him a new remote as per the Model of the AC purchased by him. The O.P.  treated the said complaint as OTHER DEFECT and no action was taken upon it and the same was treated as WASTE CALL. On 22.8.2013, he again made complaint about the said defect, but the  representative of the O.P. company gave him an unprofessional reply, telling him to wait till new stock is released. After a long wait, it was on 06.09.2013, that the O.P. provided him, a remote, which was an old & repaired one, and the O.P. gave name to the said service as REMOTE REPLACED.  The said remote was also not working properly. It is further stated that the details regarding the same can be seen on company’s website, which was annexed with complaint as Annexure C-2. The services being provided by the Company in the Ropar area are very poor and to solve any problem, the stock from the company comes very late. It is further stated that inspite of various complaints made by him, no efforts were made by the O.P. company to visit his house to inspect/ ascertain the defect(s) in the AC and to rectify the same.  When he inquired about the status of his complaints through the website of the O.P. company, he was surprised & astonished to find out that most of his complaints were  reported to having been completed as per the status shown against his complaints. It was only one complaint dated 06.09.2013, which was shown to be pending as on the said date, legal notice was sent by him. It is stated that most of the complaints were shown as completed, WASTE CALL, Parts Replaced, or as WET Service, in the company’s status report, to escape from their responsibility. No representative, mechanic or any other agent from the company had ever visited his house to inspect and verify the defects in the AC. Wrong status report is being shown by the officials of the O.P. Company on their website against the complaints made by him.  Inspite of issuance of the legal notice in the month of September, 2013, nothing was done by the O.Ps. till filing of the instant complaint, and he has been suffering a lot of mental agony, at the hands of the O.P. company, due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice being adopted by it. After service of the legal notice, only a representative of the Company had visited him, to whom, he had verbally explained that AC used to stuck most of the times and its remote & the AC itself do not work till the next morning. The said mechanic of the Company told him that the AC’s panel was having some problem and asked him to wait till company sends a new panel, as stock was not available. After a few days, the said mechanic changed the panel and presumed that the issue had been resolved, but the problem still existed and he again informed about the same to the company’s representative on phone, who again promised to resolve the said problem. It was only on 11th of April, 2014, that when Company’s mechanic had visited regarding free service and also against his request listed on Company’s website on 07.04.2014, but the problem has not been solved till date and he has been suffering due to failure on the part of the O.P. to rectify the problem and to treat the same as WET SERVICE.  He has spent a huge amount to avail the benefit of the AC, but has been deprived of its use, due to manufacturing defect in it and also  due to the callus and unprofessional attitude of the O.P., which amounts to deficiency in service & adoption of unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint. 

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 filed a joint written version in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Noveen Kumar, authorized person of M/s LLOYD Electrical and Engineering Limited, taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concocted a false and fabricated story by making  totally a false and incorrect statement in the complaint, and has concealed the true facts from this Forum, intentionally, in order to get undue favours; that there is no defect/fault in the AC and it is working properly as per its capacity, which can be checked & verified by this Forum, as such, the complainant be directed to produce the same before this Forum for the said purpose or in the alternative, some technician/engineer may be appointed to verify the said facts; that in such circumstances, the answering O.Ps. are not at fault in any way, whereas, it is the complainant who is at fault and is intentionally dragging the answering O.Ps. into this litigation. On merits, it is stated that the unit in question was checked in the presence of the complainant on his calls, but, no defect was found in it. However, on persistent demand of the complainant, once the remote was replaced and then some parts were replaced to his entire satisfaction. The matter was duly looked into and the AC is working properly and is giving perfect cooling. It is reiterated that the same can be checked & verified by getting the same produced before this Forum. Even the complainant himself has not pointed out any defect in the said AC. The question of suffering of mental agony or harassment by him does not arise at all. There is no defect in the AC, what to talk of any manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the answering O.Ps. The question of replacing the A.C. in question or payment of compensation/damages, as prayed for by the complainant, does not arise at all. Even the warrantee does not provide replacement of the same. The complainant is trying to distort the facts and has made totally a false & fabricated story, therefore, the answering O.Ps.  are entitled to exemplary costs for defending the present complaint. The answering O.Ps. are/was always ready & willing to carry out necessary repairs as per terms & conditions of the warrantee. It is the complainant who is harassing the answering  O.Ps.. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs of Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment & damages suffered by them for defending this false & frivolous complaint.

 

4.                The O.P. No.3 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.06.2014.

 

5.                 On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh. Surender Rana, authorized representative of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 tendered his affidavit, Ex.OP-1/A, and photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2/B & Ex.OP3/C and closed evidence on behalf of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2.

 

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and Sh. Surender Rana, authorized representative of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2  and have gone through the record of the file, including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully.

 

7.                From the copy of Retail Invoice Ex. C3, it is evident that the complainant had purchased the AC in question on 13.5.2013 from the O.P. No.3 for a sum of Rs.26,200/-. It may be stated that during course of arguments, the authorized representative of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 submitted that the company gives one year’s warranty for the repair/replacement of any of the defective part(s) of the AC, free of cost. Even from the copies of job sheets placed on record by the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 themselves, as Ex. OP2/B, OP2/C, it is also evident that the A.C. in question was within warranty when the complainant had made complaints regarding non-working of the said A.C. & its remote, properly. From the copy of calls record, Ex. C4, it is evident that complainant had made complaint to the company on 01.06.2013 i.e. immediately after purchase of the said A.C. Thereafter, again on 28.6.2013, complaint was made for the removal of some defect. Even on 31.7.2013, he had made complaint regarding some other defect, which had occurred. The complaints were also made on 22.8.2013, 6.9.2013 and also on 7.4.2014. Against the complaint made on 6.9.2013, ‘Remote Replaced’ was mentioned in the column—‘Service Name’. The stand of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 is that whenever the complainant had made any complaint, the same was attended to properly and needful was done. The complaints, which were made by him, on 28.6.2013 and 6.9.2013 were also redressed, as recorded in the Job Sheets, Ex. OP2/B & OP3/C, but he refused to sign the same. On the other hand, the stand of the complainant is that neither the complaints made by him regarding non-working of the AC were mentioned in the said job sheets, nor the said problem in the AC was rectified, that is why, he did not put his signatures on the said job sheets. It is further the stand of the complainant that since the defects occurred in the AC were not been removed by the O.Ps., therefore, he got it inspected from Delhi Refrigeration, on 11.7.2014, whose report has been placed on record as Ex. C2, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the A.C. was not cooling due to faulty indoor PCV. It may be stated that there is no rebuttal to the said report from the side of the contesting O.Ps. No. 1 & 2. Therefore, we have no option, but to accept the said report. From the perusal of the said report, it is clear that the AC in question was not giving cooling due to defect in the indoor PCV, but it is nowhere mentioned in it that the said defect has occurred due to some manufacturing defect. Therefore, the prayer made by the complainant for replacement of the A.C. cannot be acceded to. However, from the record, it is borne out that from the very beginning of its purchase, the said AC is not giving proper cooling, therefore, the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2, being manufacturer, were bound to set it right either by repairing/replacing the defective part(s), but they have failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. As such, they are not only liable to set the A.C. in question, in proper working condition, either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of cost, but they are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony & harassment suffered by him, in addition to payment of litigation expenses. So far as the complaint filed against the O.P. No. 3 is concerned, no doubt, the complainant had purchased the AC in question from it, but no specific allegation has been leveled against it, what to say of the same having been proved. Even, as is

apparent from the bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, the complaints were also made by the complainant directly to the manufacturing company. Therefore, the complaint filed against the O.P. No.3, who had merely sold the AC in question is liable to be dismissed.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint against O.P. No.3 is dismissed and the same is partly allowed against the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 with the following directions:-

i)       To inspect the A.C. in question thoroughly and set it right properly either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of cost, and to ensure that it gives proper cooling,

ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation,

iii)     To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                             The O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 are further directed to comply with the above directions within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 14.01.2016                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.   

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.