Pardeep Gupta filed a consumer case on 18 Aug 2023 against Lloyd Electronics Pvt. Ltd. in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/938/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Aug 2023.
Chandigarh
DF-II
CC/938/2019
Pardeep Gupta - Complainant(s)
Versus
Lloyd Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
Amit Gupta Adv.
18 Aug 2023
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
The M.D./Directors /Authorized Person, Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: SCO No.1096, Near IndsInd Bank, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh
3. Sidh Air Condition Engineers, Shop No.199, Badheri, Sector 41-D, Near Gurdwara, Chandigarh through its Authorized Person.
…. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,
PRESIDENT
SHRI B.M.SHARMA
MEMBER
Present:-
Sh.Rajinder Singh, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Amit Gupta, Counsel for complainant
Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Piyush Khanna, Counsel for OP No.1
None for OP No.2(Defence of OP No.2 already struck off).
OP No.3 exparte.
ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs pleading that he purchased 2 ACs make Lloyd Model LS19ASOAW vide Bill No.3291 dated 31.03.2017 for Rs.70,000/- (Annexure C-1) from OPs No.1 and 2 having warranty of five years. One AC installed at Shop No.2539, Sector 56, Near Jamun Chowk, Chandigarh started giving problem from 01.08.2019 and as such he approached OP No.3, as advised by OP No.2, who sent its representative on 03.08.2019 and issued a complaint report No.211 dated 03.08.2019 (Annexure C-2) and charged Rs.550/- for rectifying the problem. However, after 2-3 days, the complainant again contacted OP No.3 as the problem in the AC was not solved who again issued the job sheet dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure C-3) with remarks “not satisfied from your service for leakage problem”. The complainant approached the OPs and requested them to replace the AC as there is some manufacturing defect but no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the price of the AC, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
After service, OP No.1 appeared before this Commission and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that the AC had a warranty of one year on materials and workmanship and additional warranty of 4 years on compressor only; that the AC is being used for commercial purpose in a shop as admitted by the complainant and therefore, he is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It has further been stated that the technician provided adequate resolution for complainant’s issue but the complainant is refusing to install a door in the shop and wants cooling in an open shop which is practically not viable. It has been denied that the AC is having manufacturing defect. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The Complainant filed replication to the written version of OP No.1 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
Since OP No.2 failed to file the reply and evidence within the stipulated period of 45 days and as such its defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 07.10.2021 as per the principle of law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2016 SC 86.
Despite due service through registered post, OP No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.12.2019.
The contesting parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.
The complainant has alleged that there is some problem in the AC but nowhere in the complaint he has specified the problem i.e. what kind of problem, he was facing in the functioning of the AC. The complainant has failed to prove on record that the OP had provided him warranty of five years for compressor. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove on record any manufacturing defect by leading any expert report or so. The OP in its job dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure C-3) has given a note “shop open/front covered by plastic curtain”. In the written version also, OP No.1 specifically mentioned that the complainant was advised by OP’s technician who visited the shop of the complainant to install front door in the shop as the cooling in open shop is not practically viable but the complainant did not install the front door but it was covered by the plastic curtain only.
In the absence of any expert report or evidence to the effect that there is some manufacturing defect in the AC, it cannot be held that the AC is having any manufacturing defect.
In view of the above discussion, the complainant deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Commission
18/08/2023
Sd/-
(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(B.M.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.