Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/687/2019

Shri Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lloyd Electronic and Engineering - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/687/2019
Date of Institution	:	10/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/08/2021

 

 

Shri Gurmeet Singh, Prof. (Retd.), GNDU University, Amritsar, Punjab, son of Shri Kartar Singh, resident of House No.95, Omaxe, new Chandigarh Post Office, Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Lloyd Electronic and Engineering c/o Havells Corporate Office, QRG, Tower 2D, Sector 126, Expressway, Noida 201304, Uttar Pradesh, India, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Lloyd Electronic and Engineering, Service Centre, Havells India Limited, Showroom No.11/12, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, UT, Chandigarh.
3. Verma Enterprises, Main Bus Stand, Garibdass, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Piyush Khanna, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OPs 2 & 3 ex-parte.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The allegations in brief are, vide invoice dated 12.7.2018, complainant purchased two air conditioners of Lloyd from OPs 2 & 3 for a total consideration of ₹71,000/-.  At the time of sale, OP-3 assured that Lloyd ACs were the best in the market. The complainant got installed the ACs at his residence. The complainant used the AC for few days only and same remained not in use during the winter season. When the complainant during the summer season started using the AC, he was surprised and shocked to see that the AC started creating trouble and stopped working. The complainant immediately contacted OP-3 and he was asked to lodge a complaint with OP-2, being authorized service centre of OP-1. The complainant lodged a complaint with OP-2 on 31.5.2019. Thereafter the representatives of the company visited the complainant and took the AC to the service centre and assured to remove all the defects. After 07 days, officials of OP-2 came to the house of the complainant and installed the AC without removing the defects. The complainant again lodged complaint with OP-2 in June 2019 and also called its office a number of times, but, to no avail. Rather the complainant was told that in case he wanted to remove the defects, he will have to bear the expenses. Alleged the AC was under warranty and refusal of the OPs to repair/replace the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply.  Maintained, OP-1 never denied services to the complainant and is always ready and willing to ensure best of its services within the parameter of warranty terms and conditions.  Averred, as per the last visits of technician on 1.6.2019 and 4.6.2019, AC was put to detailed test and it was found there was no problem in both the indoor and outdoor unit as well as with respect to the pressure of the AC whereas the defect was in the copper pipe installed underground. Pleaded repair of underground copper pipe was not covered under warranty and it was ready and willing to repair it on chargeable basis. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Registered notice was sent to OP-2 which was presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, vide order dated 27.9.2019 of this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.     In pursuance to the notice issued, initially on 27.9.2019, Sh. Arvind Kumar, Proprietor of OP-3 appeared and he was directed to file reply and evidence. Subsequently, on 26.11.2019, neither anybody put in appearance on behalf of OP-3 nor the reply and evidence were filed. Accordingly, OP-3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.11.2019.
5.     Replication to the written reply of OP-1 was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OP-1 and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
8.     Perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the complainant bought two ACs after spending an amount of ₹71,000/- on 12.7.2018 from OP-3.  Both the ACs were manufactured by OP-1.  As per the case of the complainant, one out of the aforesaid two ACs got defective within the warranty period, but, the same was not repaired free of cost by the OP despite the fact that the AC in question was under warranty period.
9.     Stand taken by OP-1 is that as and when the complainant reported any complaint, same was duly attended to, but, in the present case since the defect was in the copper pipe installed underground, repair of the same was not covered under warranty and if the complainant was willing, OP was ready to repair it on chargeable basis.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
10.     OPs 2 & 3 did not contest the consumer complaint and chose to be proceeded against ex-parte.
11.     After perusal of the evidence on record, it is quite clear that the complainant invested a huge amount of ₹71,000/- to buy two ACs (₹35,500/- each) trusting the brand of the OP.  It is not the case of the complainant that he is complaining about both the ACs. Genuinely he is complaining about malfunctioning of one AC only and the same has been admitted by the OP.
12.     Job sheet Annexure R-1 dated 31.5.2019 clearly reveals the warranty status of the AC in question as “In Warranty”, but, the vague statement of the OP that the repair in question is not covered under warranty is not supported by any terms and conditions according to which they are seeking repair charges, that too when the product is within warranty period. 
13.     In our opinion, the act of the OPs for not providing after sale services despite the AC in question being within the warranty period and forcing the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service on their part which must have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
14.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to remove all the defects in the AC in question, free of cost.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹8,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/08/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member