BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 669 dated 12.09.2016.
Date of decision: 13.11.2017.
Anik Garg son of Sh. Sanjeev Garg, resident of Plot No.91, Haibowal Kalan, Dairy Complex, Part-B, Panj Peer Road, Ludhiana. ..… Complainant
Versus
- Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. having its Head Office at A-146 (B&C) RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan-301019.
CORPORATE OFFICE
- Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd., Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019.
SERVICE CENTRE
- Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd., adjoining Angeetha Sahib Gurudwara, Jawadi, Dugri, Ludhiana.
- New Endovision Electronics, Ansal Plaza Annexe Building, Near Khushi Ram Sweets, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Lokesh Batta, Advocate.
For OP1 to OP3 : Sh. KaranVerma, Advocate.
For OP4 : Sh. Saurav Arora, Advocate.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased one AC from OP4 vide invoice No.172 dated 17.07.2013. It is claimed that OP4 is the authorized dealer of OP1 to OP3. Complainant when in the last month switched on the AC, then he found as if it was not working properly and as such, he lodged an online complaint dated 13.05.2016, but got no response from the company. Thereafter, complainant tried to contact OPs through help line number, but no response got. Complainant was able to trace number of local service provider Mr. Balwinder Singh from reliable sources and thereafter, he contacted him on his mobile No.98885-14704. On complaint being lodged, said Mr. Balwinder Singh visited the premises of complainant and found condenser coil part defective. That part was replaced with new one. Balwinder Singh guaranteed that leakage of the gas will not take place from any part of the AC. Complainant again felt some problem and thereafter, he contacted above said Mr. Balwinder Singh, who after visiting checked the AC for whole of the day, but was unable to understand the problem. Said Balwinder Singh promised to return back on next morning, but he did not visit despite the fact that he opened the parts of AC. The person who visited second time for checking the AC left all the parts of AC open and loose and thereafter complainant contacted Mr. Balwinder Singh and OP1 to OP3 many times, but got no response. Complainant claimed to have suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/- due to leakage of gas of the AC as due to hot, humid and bad weather, his family members fell ill. Cause of action alleged to be recurring one and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- or replace the AC with new one. Compensation for mental harassment and agony also claimed.
2. In joint reply filed by OP1 to OP3, it is claimed that complaint is not maintainable; complaint filed by concealing the material facts; the warrantee of AC has already elapsed because same was for one year only; complaint alleged to be filed in the false and fraudulent manner because the condenser coil of the AC was not purchased by the complainant from a registered and authorized outlet of Lloyd company. It is also claimed that on 18.07.2013, AC was not installed by the authorized service centre, but same was got installed from an outside vendor namely New Endovision Electronics. The condenser coil was purchased by the complainant himself. Balwinder Singh above said, the area service incharge, assigns duty to his subordinate, but he himself does not visit the premises. One Pardeep Singh was assigned the duty of visiting premises of complainant and he by doing so disclosed the complainant as if condenser coil is not original and that the gas leakage of AC is not covered by the warrantee period. It is claimed that there is no lapse on the part of the company or its authorized service centre because the AC was having a defective coil, which was not original one. The gas leakage has not taken place due to lapse on the part of service centre, but it is due to purchase of defective condenser coil and insertion thereof. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that there is no deficiency in service and complainant has no cause of action.
3. In separate reply filed by OP4, it is claimed that complaint in present form is not maintainable; complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts; complaint bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and that complainant has no cause of action available for filing the complaint. There is no liability of OP4 because it is a mere authorized dealer of the company. Complainant is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1996. Admittedly, complainant purchased one AC from OP4 on 17.07.2013. OP4 claims himself to be an authorized dealer of OP1 to OP3. It is admitted that installation of AC took place on 18.07.2013 and thereafter installation slip was signed by the complainant himself. It is denied that complainant approached Balwinder Singh on telephone or he visited premises of complainant. Each and every other averment of complaint denied.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and thereafter, he along with his counsel closed evidence.
5. On the other hand Sh. Lalit Sharma, Executive Service Lloyd Service Centre tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. RA and thereafter counsel for OP1 to OP3 closed evidence by tendering document Ex. R1. Sh. Nitin Jindal, Partner of OP4 along with counsel tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA4 of Sh. Nitish Jindal and thereafter, they closed evidence.
6. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through carefully.
7. Purchase of AC in question for consideration of Rs.25,500/- including VAT established by copy of retail invoice Ex. C1 and installation of same got done by complainant from OP4 is a fact borne from installation slip Ex. C2 itself. These facts even admitted by OP4 in the written reply. Defect in the condenser coil took place on 13.05.2016, when the complaint in that respect was lodged and the job sheet Ex. C3 = Ex. RA1 was prepared. Copy of the terms and conditions of the warrantee has been produced by counsel for OP1 to OP3 during course of arguments. Perusal of the terms and conditions of the warrantee provides that warrantee of AC is for period of one year except front grill, knobs, remote unit & add-on plastic parts. That warrantee of one year from the date of the purchase aims at providing of defects in materials and workmanship within that period. Warrantee of the compressor is for period of 60 months from the date of invoice as per these terms and conditions of the warrantee. However, defects in this case took place after more than two years and nine months of the purchase of AC in question in condenser part and not in compressor part and as such, warrantee was to remain in force until 16.07.2014 i.e. for the period of one year from the date of purchase. So replacement of the defective condenser unit part was to take place on charging basis
8. Perusal of Ex. C3 = Ex. R1 reveals that refilling of the gas in AC was done on 23.05.2016, but without providing any guarantee, but by charging Rs.2100/- as charges. Name of technician endorsed on Ex. C3= Ex. R1 is Pardeep Singh and as such, certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP1 to OP3 has force that in fact Balwinder Singh, person named in the complaint, has not visited the premises of complainant, but it was Pardeep Singh, technician, who visited premises of complainant. Name of that Pardeep Singh is not at all mentioned in the complaint anywhere. Even if that be the position, despite that it is to be kept in mind that the gas refilling work was done after warrantee period and as such, in view of non providing of any guarantee qua leakage of refilled gas through Ex. C3 = Ex. R1, OPs cannot be blamed, if subsequently any problem in AC had taken place after 23.05.2016. Rather this complaint has been filed for abusing process of law because the warrantee had already elapsed, but despite that the manufacturer and the service centre impleaded as parties for claiming that condenser coil part, despite being replaced, but problem still persists. As guarantee regarding leakage of gas after refilling on 23.05.2016 not provided through Ex. C3 = Ex. R1 and warrantee period had already elapsed and as such, OP1 to OP3 cannot be held liable for any deficient service. Likewise OP4, seller cannot be held liable because as per endorsement of terms and conditions on the invoice Ex. C1, the responsibility of OP4 ceases after the sold goods are removed from the godown/showroom. That removal of the AC in question from the showroom/godown of OP4 took place on 17/18.07.2013 and as such, after lapse of more than two years and nine months, dealer cannot be held liable for the defects qua which guarantee/warrantee is not to be provided by the manufacturer, owing to lapse of period of warrantee/guarantee.
9. Even if the plea in written statement of OP1 to OP3 may be incorrect regarding OP4 not the authorized dealer, despite that the overall facts and circumstances are taken into consideration for finding as to whether deficiency on the part of OPs or any of them is there or not. Copy of the warrantee terms and conditions produced during course of arguments is made part of this file.
10. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Param Jit Singh Bewli) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:13.11.2017.
Gobind Ram.
