Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/659

Rajni Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lloyd Electric Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

AP Bector adv

05 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 659 of 08.09.2016

Date of Decision            :   05.10.2021

 

Rajni Bala aged 41 wife of Sh.Tarlochan Kumar, resident of H.No.10913, New Subhash Nagar, St. No.5/2, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Lloyd Electric Engineer, 159, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Authorized person.

IInd Address: Lloyd Electric & Engineering Limited., Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi, through Managing Director/Authorized person.

2.M/s New Endovision Electronics, Branch Office Ansal Plaza Annexe Building, Near Khushi Ram Sweets, Ferozepur Rod, Ludhiana, through Authorized Officer/Manager.

 

…..Opposite parties

 

 

                    Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant            :         Sh.A.P.Bector, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh. Karan Verma, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.Amandeep Modi, Advocate

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Lloyd Split one ton (5 Star) air conditioner from the OP2 vide invoice No.5363 dated 16.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.26,300/-. The AC is manufactured by the OP1. The complainant was assured that the AC is carried a guaranty of one year and had extra guarantee for the compressor and in case any defect would arise, the AC would be replaced with a new one.

2.                 It is further alleged in the complaint that a few days after purchase, the AC developed a defect as it was not functioning properly and was not cooling the premises. The complainant lodged a complaint on toll free number of the OP1 and an engineer came to the house of the complainant and checked the AC and told the complainant that the AC has been repaired. However, 2-3 days thereafter, the complainant found that the AC was again not properly working. The matter was reported to the OPs on toll free number but no action was taken by the OPs. The complainant lodged complaints No.200616625727 dated 20.06.2016 and 29616625727 dated 29.06.2016 and even after the service of the AC, it was not working properly. The official of the OP1 asked the complainant that the defect was irreparable and cannot be removed. Thereafter, the complainant has been approaching the OPs with the request either to repair the same or to replace the AC with a new one but the OPs have flatly refused to do anything. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the defective AC with a new one and be also made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OP1, it has been pleaded that after purchasing the AC, the complainant did not avail the services of the authorized centre of the OP1 for installation. Instead, the complainant hired the services of some local technician and got the AC installed. A complaint was lodged by the complainant which was attended to vide job invoice No.238715 dated 29.06.2016. The technician visited the premises of the complainant on 30.06.2016 and found that the local mechanic had wrongly installed the AC which was touching the ceiling of the room which hindered the efficient working of the AC. Due to wrong installation, a blockage problem arise in the drain pipe of the AC. The authorized technician of the OP1 corrected the installation and removed the blockage free of cost and gave remarks on the job sheet that the AC was working properly. Thereafter, the complainant used the AC till October 2016 without any complaint but later on made a false and frivolous complaint against the OP1 after the expiry of warranty period. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In separate written statement filed on behalf of the OP2, it has been pleaded that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint against the OP2 who is merely an authorized dealer of the OP1. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

5.                In evidence, counsel for the complainant submitted affidavit Ex.CA of Sh.Navdeep Kumar, attorney holder of the complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 submitted affidavit Ex. RA1 of Sh.Pardeep Singh and closed the evidence.

7.                Similarly, OP2 submitted affidavit Ex.RB2 of Sh.Nitish Jindal, Partner of OP2 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have carefully gone through the record and have heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.

9.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the AC was not working properly and it was not cooling even in the small premises where it was installed and, therefore, the OPs are under an obligation to replace the defective product with a new one since the AC has not been cooling properly and it is rendered useless for the complainant.

10.              On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant himself has been negligent as he got the AC installed from a local mechanic and not from the qualified technician of the OP1 which resulted in mal-functioning of the product. Counsel for the OPs has further pointed out that in the job sheet Ex.R1, it is specifically mentioned that the AC was got installed from a local mechanic but despite that it was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant without any charges. The counsel for the OPs has further argued that the allegations made in the complaint are quite vague and has not been proved as no expert witness has been examined to prove as to exactly what defect was there in the product due to which it was not functioning properly.

11.              We have weighed the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties.

12.              In this case, the complainant has claimed that the AC was purchased by her from the OP2 on 16.07.2015 has not been functioning properly and it has not been cooling properly despite the fact that it has been installed in a very small premises. It has also been claimed by the complainant that she lodged several complaints to the OPs but despite that the defect in the AC could not be repaired and now the OPs are refusing to replace the same. However, in our considered view, the allegations regarding the defect in the AC are vague and general in nature. In the para no.2 of the complaint, it is alleged that the AC was not functioning properly after a few days its purchase and was not giving a cooling effect. It is further mentioned that a technician of the OPs came and checked the AC, but 2/3 days thereafter, it again stopped working properly. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint on 20.6.2016 and again on 29.6.2016 following which the AC was repaired, but it was still not working properly. Thus, in the entire complaint, the allegation regarding defect in the AC is that it was not cooling properly. No technician or engineer has been examined by the complainant to prove the nature of the defect. Unless and until the complainant alleges and proves that there was a manufacturing defect in the product, the same cannot be ordered to be replaced. The complainant has further not given the dimensions of the area or the room where the AC is installed. There is no allegation that the compressor of the AC is defective and is not functioning properly. Admittedly, a technician of the OP1 visited the premises of the complainant on 30.06.2016 as is evident from job sheet Ex.R1. It is mentioned in the job sheet Ex.R1 that there was some defect in the drain pipe and in the column of ‘Action Taken’ of job sheet Ex.R1, it is further mentioned that the drain pipe was washed and adjusted and the AC was O.K. It is further mentioned in the job sheet Ex.R1 that the complainant refused to sign the job sheet.

13.              Apart from this, it has been alleged by the OPs in the written statement that the complainant did not get the AC installed from the authorized technician of the company. Rather she got it installed from a local mechanic. It is further mentioned in the written statement that since the AC was wrongly installed, it was corrected by the technician on his visit to the premises of the complainant on 30.06.2016. However, these facts have not been controverted by the complainant by filing a replication. Even in the affidavit Ex.CA of Sh.Navdeep Kumar, attorney holder of the complainant, it has not been denied that the AC was not installed from the outside mechanic. Therefore, even if some mal-functioning developed in the AC, it can be attributed to its installation by an unauthorized and unqualified technician, for which the OPs cannot be held responsible. Even otherwise at the time of visit to the house of the complainant, the authorized technician of the OPs corrected the installation and restored the AC to a proper working condition, as mentioned in the job sheet Ex.R1. Moreover, the complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove some inherent or manufacturing defect in the product. In absence of the same, it cannot be held that the complainant is entitled to get the AC replaced.

14.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

15.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

16.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jaswinder Singh)                      (K.K. Kareer)

                Member                                   President

 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:05.10.2021

Gurpreet Sharma.