Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/532

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Upkar Singh Adv.

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 532 of 22.07.2016

   Date of Decision            :   24.07.2017

 

Manjit Kaur Bedi aged 62 years wife of S.Tarlok Singh Bedi, resident of 48, 2^nd Floor, Sant Ishar Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Lloyd Electric & Engineering Limited, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, through its Directors/Managing Directors.

2.M/s Video Vision Sales Corporation, Kammy Plaza, Kailash Cinema Road, Ludhiana, through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.

3.Lloyd Service Centre, Adjoining Gurdwara Angeetha Sahib/Prabh Simran Kendra Gurdwara, Jawaddi Canal Road, Ludhiana, through its Service Incharge Balwinder Singh.

…Opposite parties

 

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

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant               :         Sh.Upkar Singh Bedi, Advocate

For OP1 and OP3            :         Sh.Karam Verma, Advocate

For OP2                           :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant Smt.Manjit Kaur Bedi, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs by claiming that she purchased one Lloyd AC model 19A3LN, having Sr.No.10415067880215003825 and one Lloyd Smart TV LED Model L32S having Sr.No.LaA1412065 from OP2 for total amount of Rs.49,000/- including VAT through invoice No.10475 dated 20.8.2015. Finance for purchase of these products was obtained from Bajaj Alliance Finance Limited. At the time of purchase, it was disclosed as if the products are free from all types of defects and in case of any defect, the same will be replaced within 48 hours, otherwise company will be responsible for that. On account of these assurances given by OP2 and officials of Lloyd Company, the above said products were purchased. Lloyd AC was installed on 21.8.2015, but the same did not work/start and immediately thereafter, the complainant contacted OP2, who advised to contact Op3 and accordingly, complainant contacted OP3 for lodging complaint No.LEEL210815462308. Thereafter, a person was sent to resolve the problem in the AC, but he disclosed about manufacturing defect in the part of AC by claiming that same was not repairable and will have to be replaced. That part was not available with OP3 and as such, complainant was disclosed as if he can start the AC with temporary repair immediately. Assurance was given to fetch the original part within 15 days. AC was started on temporary basis by the person sent by OP3. However, AC started making severe noise, but when the complainant contacted OP3 again on 24.8.2015 by lodging complaint No.LEEL240815468950, then just assurance   was given to the complainant as if noise problem will be resolved after replacement of defective part with new original one. Thereafter, complainant approached OP3 telephonically several times for installing the original part of AC. On 3.3.2016, complaint No.LEEL030316123763 was again lodged and OP3 informed that     period of seven months have already elapsed, but the original part is not replaced and that is why, severe noise emitted by AC on working. That noise rendering the sleep of complainant uncomfortable. On 15.3.2016 i.e. after about 7 months of purchase of AC, OP3 installed the original part in the AC, but noise problem was not resolved. A family member of the complainant signed the retail invoice/job sheet bearing No.140918 with remarks that AC still giving high noise and it is worse than a cooler, due to which, family members cannot  sleep, when AC is ON. Through that note, request for change of unit/AC or refund of price was sought. Copy of said job sheet was requested to be supplied, but the person, who came for repair, refused to deliver the same and as such, photograph of the job sheet was clicked. Again complaint No.LEEL120516441045 lodged with OP3 on 12.05.2016. Request to OP1 for replacing AC with new one was put forth, but OP3 refused to oblige. Rather, threats were administered that in case, complainant sends any notice or file the complaint, then he will have to face dire consequences. After serving legal notice dated 25.5.2016 through counsel, this complaint filed by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Even it is claimed that the complainant suffered mental torture, agony and harassment as well as punitive loss and as such, prayer made for refund of price of AC namely Rs.27,000/- with interest @12% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- more claimed.

2.                 In written statement filed by OP1 and OP3, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has suppressed the material facts while filing the complaint and that due services were provided to the complainant by sending the technician namely Sh.Lalit Sharma on 28.3.2016. That technician checked AC and gave remarks that IDU fan motor speed is high and that is why air flow causes sound. After receipt of numerous complaints from the complainant, OP1 and OP3 again sent their authorized technician to visit the premises of complainant for providing needful services to the satisfaction of the complainant. At the time of installation of AC, complainant refused to pay for the installation charges without any specific reasons and the same is mentioned vide complaint ID No.LEEL210815462308 dated 21.8.2015. It is claimed that there is no defect or default in the said AC. In the catalogue of OP1, it is specifically mentioned as to how much noise in decibels to be emitted by AC and as to how much electricity is to       be consumed by AC. Admittedly, AC along with LED were purchased from OP2, but it is denied that assurance was given regarding products being free from all types of defects. Allegation regarding AC not functioning on 21.8.2015 or of disclosure of manufacturing defect by a person sent by OP3 denied one by one each. No disclosure was made to the complainant that original parts will be available after 15 days as claimed in the complaint. It is denied that on 15.3.2016, the noise problem was not resolved and a family member recorded note on invoice /job sheet bearing No.140918. Other averment of complaints also denied.

3.                 OP2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.                 Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents EX.C1 to Ex.C5 as well as Mark-A and Mark-B and then her counsel closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 and OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Balwinder Singh, Service Incharge(Authorized Signatory) of Lloyd Service Centre of OP3 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

7.                 Undisputedly, the AC in question was purchased by the complainant from OP2 vide retail invoice Mark-A for consideration of Rs.27,000/- on 20.8.2015. On this Mark-A, copy of retail invoice itself, it is mentioned as if guarantee/warranty valid in service centre and all goods dispatched at buyer’s risk. In view of this specific endorsement on this retail invoice, it is obvious that guarantee/warranty to be provided either by the manufacturer or the service centre and not by the seller. Complainant was disclosed about the same, when he contacted OP2, who referred the complainant to OP3 and that is why, complainant contacted OP3 repeatedly. In view of term of this guarantee obligation, certainly complaint against OP2, the seller, is not maintainable for the defect of persistent noise in the AC.

8.                 Perusal of User Manual Ex.C1 reveals that warranty of AC was for one year from the date of purchase. This purchase admittedly took place on 20.8.2015 and installation of AC done on 21.8.2015 as revealed by copy of job sheet Ex.R2. On Ex.R2 itself, it is recorded that customer/complainant refused to pay the installation charges. If such refusal is there, then due to that alone, OP1 and OP3 cannot shirk from their responsibility of providing due services of repairing the AC for  rectification of noise problem. Despite this note on Ex.R2, OP3, the service centre again sent technician Mr.Ajay Kumar on 24.8.2015 for removal of complained of defects as revealed by contents of job sheet Ex.R3. In the column of service name, it is mentioned as if adjustment was done. What sort of adjustment was done,       regarding that no note recorded in the job sheet Ex.R3. If that be the position, then contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant are correct that when technician of OP3 visited the premises of complainant for completing the work of installation undertaken on 21.8.2015, then he pointed out as if defect in the AC is in one part and same requires replacement. It is on account of this that in Ex.R3 itself, it is mentioned as if P1 part with Code No.19000001663 requires replacement. Code number of this P1 part known to the company only and not to the complainant or anybody else. So, contents of Ex.R3 itself establishes that virtually AC in question was started on temporary basis after doing adjustment, but with the remarks that replacement of the part with above referred code is required.

9.                 In the subsequent job sheet dated 28.3.2016 placed on record as Ex.R4, it is mentioned as if AC is within warranty period, but the same is emitting sound problem. No mention of replacement of P1 part with Code No.19000001663( as mentioned in Ex.R3) is made in Ex.R4 and nor any other job sheet produced by Op1 and OP3 to show that replacement of that P1 part with above referred code was done during period from 24.8.2015 to 28.3.2016. In such circumstances, contents of complaint and affidavit Ex.CA of complainant are correct that replacement of required defective part did not take place for about 7 months even after the pointing out of defect of noise. Non-mentioning of specific defect in the job sheet Ex.R3 of 24.8.2015 further leads to the conclusion that the technician deliberately omitted to mention the reported defect. Deliberate withholding of information regarding          the actual defect through Ex.R3 in such circumstances leads to the conclusion that either  the technician concerned did not bother about the pointed out defect or he being employee of OP1 and OP3 omitted to carry out the due services, despite the pointing out of noise problem. Being so, mention in Ex.R4 regarding AC being in OK condition is in appropriate, particularly when in Ex.R4 itself, it is mentioned that IDU Fan motors speed was found high resulting in air flow sound. How much sound in decibels should be there as per specifications and as to how much it was found qua that mention in none of these job sheets specifically made at all and as such, OK report virtually given through job sheets without removing defects or making mention of those defects in the job sheets Ex.R3 and Ex.R4.

10.               It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP1 and OP3 that specifications of sound in decibel is mentioned in Ex.R1 and as such, in the absence of any expert report, being got produced by the complainant, it should be held as if complainant failed to prove that there was sound defect. That submission of counsel for OP1 and OP3 has no force, particularly when the technician who visited the premises of complainant despite being reported about sound problem did not mention the permissible limit of sound in decibels and the found limit of sound in decibels in any of the job sheets. As the technical expert advice was available with OP1 and OP3, but the same withheld deliberately and as such, by drawing adverse inference against OP1 and OP3, it has to be held that virtually due efforts of removing the noise problem were not made at all. In such circumstances, a family member of complainant was constrained to record note on retail invoice/job sheet of 20.2.2017 placed on record as Mark-B as if AC is still noisy and is worse than a cooler. In that note recorded on foot of Mark-B itself, it is mentioned that due to noise it was not possible to sleep, when AC kept on. Note of non-satisfaction with functioning of AC was recorded with request to change the unit or refund the price. Counsel for OP1 and OP3 contends that this job sheet Mark-B is forged, but no evidence of forgery produced, despite the fact that this job sheet Mark-B bears the signatures of one Ajay Kumar, Technician in the same pattern as are there on job sheet Ex.R3 produced by Op1 and OP3. Said Ajay Kumar, Technician even has not been examined as witness. Affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Balwinder Singh, Service Incharge do not show about permissible limit of sound

in decibels and the found limit of noise in decibels and as such, this affidavit Ex.RA is of  no avail for OP1 and OP3 for proving that AC was in appropriate working condition.

11.               From the above discussion, it is made out that complainant able to prove as if defect of loud noise in the AC despite being pointed out since from beginning, has not been removed and replacement of required part not done for seven months, even after start of AC on temporary basis after doing adjustment on 24.8.2015. As the defect of noise not rectified within the warranty period despite numerous complaints and as such, complainant certainly entitled for the replacement of defective AC with new one of same model with fresh warranty of one year. Keeping in view the fact that complaint filed after service of notice Ex.C2 through postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 as well as the fact that OP3 sent technician for rectifying the defects, ends of justice warrants that reasonable compensation on account of mental harassment and agony along with litigation expenses alone should be allowed, particularly when the replacement ordered after expiry of one year period of purchase only on the ground that defects not removed within warranty period despite being pointed out.

12.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed against OP1 and OP3 only with direction to them to replace the defective AC in question with new one of same model with fresh warranty of one year, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only), but litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Op1 and OP3 only, whose liability held as joint and several. Complaint  against OP2 is dismissed. Compliance qua direction of payment of compensation amount and litigation expenses be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.07.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.