DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 783/2016
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. NEETU JAIN W/o SH. N.K. JAIN,
R/o 410, GALI No.2, GANESH NAGAR-II,
SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI-110092.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
LEEL ELECTRICALS LTD.,
159, OKHLA PHASE-III,
NEW DELHI-110020.
ALSO AT: C-4, PHASE-II,
NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH-201305. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 22.07.2016
Date of decision:27.04.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant wanted to buy a good quality A.C. and the complainant read advertisements issued by OP in various newspapers as well as electronic media regarding the products being manufactured and sold by OP and OP has been making very high claims regarding the quality of all the products i.e. A.C. andinsisting that the products are the best in quality as compared to
CC No.783/2016 Page 1 of 8
the A.C. of the other manufacturers besides the A.C. so manufactured by OP require almost zero maintenance and OP has been making high claims that it has a large network of service centre in Delhi and that company provides very timely, prompt and efficient services to its customers. The complainant further alleged that on believing the said representations and high claims made by OP in print and electronic media, the complainant inspired by the high profile advertisement and lured the representations by OP decided to purchase an A.C. manufactured by OP and the complainant purchased an A.C. for a sum of Rs.23,000/- vide retail invoice no. 10581 on 11.07.2014 with 5 years full warrantee from the dealer i.e. Vansh Electronics, D-10, Laxmi Nagar, Main Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 who was earlier impleaded as OP-2 but was deleted by the complainant vide his application dated 09.07.2018. In the month of August-2014, A.C. started giving very high noise for which the complainant made a complaint with OP, thereafter, the engineer of OP attended the complaint and against which he told the complainant that it is the normal noise and prepared the job card without doing nothing, mentioning that dry service though the samehas been signed by the complainant only to avoid the unpleasant circumstances and in the 4th week of June-2015, the complainant as well as other family members pointed out that thecooling of the A.C. in question is very poor, hence the complainant
CC No.783/2016 Page 2 of 8
lodged the complaint before OP vide complaint no.LEEL 230615360626 and KKG code is VS 2595 and the engineers of OP attended the complaint of the complainant and assured that the cooling problem has been resolved, the complainant also signed the satisfactory report at that time. The complainant further alleged that the complainant immediately contacted to service engineer at his mobile no. 8588825347 who told the complainant that cooling is absolutely correct, nevertheless he assured the complainant that he will again attend the complaint within the couple of days but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant contacted to the service engineer several times but in vain, the complainant started to use her second A.C. when a long time has been passed unattended the complaint and seeing no way the complainant again made online complaint to OP on 12.08.2015 vide its complaint no. LEEL 1208 1544 5334, upon which the official of OP-1 telephonically contacted to the complainant and assured that the A.C. in question will be attended tomorrow positively but false assurance was given to the complainant and no body attended the complaint of the complainant. On 14.08.2015, one engineer of OP telephonically contacted to the complainant from mobile no. 9953815890 and stated that the A.C. is out of warrantee hence cannot be attended and it is difficult to the complainant to tolerate such type ofbusiness ethics of OP in this peak hot session. On 14.08.2015, the
CC No.783/2016 Page 3 of 8
complainant sent an advance copy of complaint to OP through e-mail after receiving the mail on 20.08.2015, one lady official of OP telephonically called the complainant from telephone no.011-47100600 and clearly refuse to remove the problem stating that the A.C. in question is out of warrantee while at the time of selling OP-1 provided warrantee for 5 years and the act of OP clearly shows that OP-1 is more interested to harass the gullible consumers and only interested to cheat them and the complainant further allegedthat there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the invoice amount of Rs.23,600/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also prayed for grant of legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed reply and inthe reply, OP submitted that there is no defect in the said A.C. nor any deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence, much less plausible and/or credible, so as to prove that there is any inherent defect in the product in question or any deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP further submitted that the technician of OP has always made themselves available andevery time the complaint was made, they checked the window A.C.
CC No.783/2016 Page 4 of 8
of the complainant but did not find any defect or fault in the same and infact, on one such visit by the technician of OP, the complainant was told that her product was out of warrantee and that she will have to pay an amount of Rs.400/-as service charges but the complainant in sheer greed of getting free service, instead of making the payment and getting the problem checked and fixed by the technician of OP, started abusing the technician and threatened him that if they do not give free service she will drag them to the court and when the technician refused to accede to her unlawful demands, the complainant preferred the present complaint with the malafide intention of getting free service from OP and further submitted that none of the service track report stated that the A.C. was/is defective. OP further submitted that one such call made by the complainant was on August-2014 regarding noise of the A.C. which when attended by the technician of OP on 19.08.2014 was found to be completely normal and the complainant was told that the sound is the normal sound of any window A.C., further to satisfy the complainant the technician of OP provided dry service to the complainant and she was satisfied with the same and never complained about the sound issue ever again and the fact is available in the customer service track report maintained by OP in the website i.e. www. mylloyd. com/track-complaints. php. OPfurther submitted that the next call made by the complainant to OP
CC No.783/2016 Page 5 of 8
on 23.06.2015 asking OP for servicing the said A.C. and the time gap between the last call made by the complainant and the call goes to show that the complainant was enjoying the product of OP for a good period of 10 months without any “noise problem” as was alleged by the complainant in her last call and on receipt of the call from the complainant to OP technician immediately attended to the call made by the complainant on 24.06.2015 and provided wet service and the complainant herein was completely satisfied by the service provided by OP and the same is evident from the fact that the complainant had mentioned “satisfied” in the customer rating done by OP and the fact is available in the website i.e. www. mylloyd.com /track-complaints.php. OP further submitted that the complainant made the 3rd call to OP on 12.08.2015 and by that time the warrantee provided for the said product had already expired hence the technician as a matter of practice informed the complainant that she will have to pay an amount of Rs.400/- as service charges for the service to be rendered by OP post expiry of the warrantee period. OP further submitted that the complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed and the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP filed an application dated 08.08.2017 for change of name of company from LLYOD Electric &Engineering Ltd. to LEEL Electricals Ltd. alongwith copy of
CC No.783/2016 Page 6 of 8
Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name which is issued by the office of Registrar of Companies, Kanpur and the application was allowed vide order dated 09.08.2017
4. The complainantfiled rejoinder to the reply of OP and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 10581 dated 11.07.2014 for purchase of AC for total value of Rs.23,000/- from the dealer, copy of e-mail dated 14.08.2015 sent by the complainant to OP and copy of warrantee card showing 5 years warrantee on compressor.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Manjeet Singh, Branch Manager of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per lines of defence taken by OP in the reply. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the parties. The case of the complainant has remained consistent andundoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
8. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant madecomplaints of his AC to OP within warranty period but the defect has not been rectified by OP, though it was the duty of the OP to rectify the defect once for all or to replace the product. Acustomer/consumer is not expected to file complaints frequently in
CC No.783/2016 Page 7 of 8
respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OPis held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:-
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.23,000/- being the price of the AC on return of the disputed AC with original bill.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP to thecomplainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 27thday of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.783/2016 Page 8 of 8
