BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.226 of 2016
Date of Instt. 23.05.2016
Date of Decision :20.12.2016
Rohit Chopra S/o Sh. Pawan Chopra R/o H. NO. NB 266 Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar City, Punjab Pin 144001 age 32 years.
Surinder Kumar Behl S/o Sh. Ram Murti behal R/o 17 Link Road, Kapurthala. Age 52
..........Complainant
Versus
Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, India. through its Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
Lloyd service center, through its Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
129, BABA BUDDA SINGH NAGAR.,, 120 feet road, jalandhar
Thind electronic center, near shehnai palace, kanjali road, opposite jaggi market Kapurthala. Through its Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/Manager/ Representative.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Adv. Counsel for opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
Opposite Party No.3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The present complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that he has purchased a LG LED and a Lloyd Split AC LS18HC from the opposite parties vide invoice number 2036 dated 15.11.2015 amounting to Rs.51,000/-. He lodged a complaint from toll free number of Lloyd i.e. 18001377781 on 10.05.2016 at about 6:24 PM for the installation of the product from the registered mobile number 7814111688 and complainant was told that he has to deposit Rs.1500/- for installation charges of the product. Upon this complainant asked that the installation must be free of cost but customer care executive told the complainant that he will register the complaint only if customer will agree to pay the Rs.1500/- and then complainant agreed on the same and on this complainant got assurance that his product will be installed within 24 hours and a request number was provided to the complainant to his registered number i.e. LEEL100516434513 after this complainant received a call from the service centre that the technician will come to your place by the evening and kindly give the code to the technician after the satisfactory completion of the request on the same day but none of the technician came to the house of the complainant for installation of the product. The complainant did not shared the code with anybody. The complainant waited for the technician till 23.05.2016 but none come present and then the complainant again called to the Lloyd office and after taking the number of the concerned person then complainant came to know that his request for installation was closed by the service center so this complainant again make request to the concerned person that it's summer days and complainant cannot survive without AC in his room and complainant is make a request and complainant has already made a request on 10.05.2016 for the installation of the product and they have only technician and he is quiet busy in his work whenever he will get time he will definitely come to your house but he cannot assure you the time for the installation of the product. That this is not the level of service which a customer expects from the multinational company and this deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2 despite request the opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the complaint may be accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 be directed to provide proper service to the complainant for installation of the product and further opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and further to pay the cost of litigation litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly despite service opposite party No.3 did not come present and opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed their joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and as such complainant is not entitled for the relief and further submitted that the complainant is estopped by his own act, conduct, admission and omission from filing the present complaint and then no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party. It is further alleged that the complaint is incomplete and does not mention the correct and proper facts, history of the case. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further submitted that the opposite party is bonafide manufacturer/seller/service provider of the electronics and never indulge in any type of malpractices and main motto of the answering opposite parties No.1 and 2 is to provide best service to the customers. On merits products of charge is admitted and further also admitted that complainant make a request for installation of both the products on 10.05.2016 and it is also admitted that the complainant was asked to deposit the payment of Rs.1500/- as installation charges, but the remaining allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and further alleged that the technician of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 had visited the house of the complainant at the registered address House No.NB266 Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar City and when the technician opened the seal and packing of the Air Conditioner there technician did not found any wiring inside the box on this technician had the conversation with the opposite party No.3 and informed about the same to the opposite party No.3 and lastly the compliant of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C1 i.e. copy of invoice and Ex. C2 i.e. copy of compliant and then closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurwinder Singh Ex. OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 i.e. Job Sheet and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. After taking into consideration the over all facts as elaborated by the complainant in his complaint as well as by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 in its written reply, we find that in regard to purchase of both products i.e. LG LED and a Lloyd Split AC LS18HC from the opposite parties No.3 on 15.11.2015 for amounting to Rs.51,000/- is not denied by opposite parties and to prove this fact the complainant has placed on the file the photocopy of invoice Ex.C1. Apart from that opposite parties has admitted that the complainant made a request on 10.05.2016 for installation of the product which was registered and complainant was asked to give Rs.1500/- for installation of the product which the complainant agreed and then complainant was informed that technician will come for installation of both the products but as per the version of the complainant none has come present for said products but opposite parties No.1 and 2 in para No.4 stated that the technician visited the house of the complainant and when the technician opened the seal and packing of the Air Conditioner there technician did not found any wiring inside the box on this technician had the conversation with the opposite party No.3 and informed about the same to the opposite party No.3. There is no doubt that the version of the complainant has been almost admitted by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to the extent that a request was made for installation of the products but till today the said products has not been installed for want of wiring which is not available in the box of the air conditioner, so, it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for not packing all the accessories which is required for installation of the air conditioner. It is the negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and due to that negligence the technician could not able to install the air conditioner in the house of the complainant. So, there is no doubt that it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, whereas opposite party No.3 has nothing to do for installation and he is not participate for packing the product and as such the negligence and defects in service is only on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. Therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled for relief.
8. In the light of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to install the products of the complainant by supplying all the accessories which is required for installation and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant will entitled to get interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.13000/- @ 9 % from the date of filing complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
20.12.2016 Member President
Rohit Chopra Vs. Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd.
Present: Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Adv. Counsel for opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
Opposite Party No.3 exparte.
Remaining exparte arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the present complaint has been partly accepted. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
20.12.2016 Member President