Haryana

Kurukshetra

191/2016

Tajinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahavir electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Gurmej Singh

18 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.191 of 2016.

Date of instt:13.07.2016. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 18.12.2018.

Tajender Pal Singh Dhillon son of S. Kishan Singh, resident of House No.6, Sector-3, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                               ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Mahavir Electrical Company, 27, Arya Samaj Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.
2. Dakin Air Conditioning India Private Limited 12^th Floor, Building No.9 Tower A DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Smt.  Kamlesh Sangwan, Adv. for complainant.              

Sh. Rajender Singh, Adv. for Op No.1.

Sh. Arvind Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.2.

           

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Tajender Pal Singh against Mahabir Electrical Company & another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a split air conditioner of Dakin Company on 15.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.34,000/- vide Bill No.2540 and paid the amount in cash to Op No.1. The said A.C. worked properly for some time and thereafter the defects occurred in the A.C. and stopped cooling.  The complainant got installed the said A.C. through underground pipe system and machinery was fitted on the floor of second story and A.C. was fitted in the drawing room of new built kothi.  Due to defect, the complainant made complaint on 20.4.2016 and on the complaint one engineer Joginder Singh came at the spot and after checking he told that there is leakage of gas and he again came for second time and filled-up the gas in the A.C. but the gas again leaked and A.C. stopped working.  The complainant again approached the Ops on 23.4.2016 and again the engineer came and who mis-led the complainant by saying that there is leakage in the underground pipe and due to the said reason the engineer damaged the wooden work and wall of kothi to find out the leakage but there was no leakage in the underground pipeline and engineer told that the unit is to be transferred at some other place in the same drawing room. Accordingly, the unit was installed at other place in the same drawing room and for that purpose he charged Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. In spite of that change of spot, the said AC is not working properly and not doing the cooling. The complaint again made complaint to the Ops on 1.5.2016 and said Joginder Singh engineer again came and it was found that the leakage is in the indoor unit which is manufacturing defect and indoor unit was changed by the Ops but still the said A.C. is not working properly and under the compelling circumstances a complaint was again made on 6.5.2016 and again on 11.7.2017 but none has visited the spot. Due to the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss.  Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the Unit with new one of the same company or to refund the cost of the Unit in question, to pay Rs.40,000/- as damages of wooden work plus Rs.5000/- as labour charges and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Upon notice, OPs appeared. OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing the written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP because OP No.2 is manufacturer company of the unit in question as alleged by the complainant and the answering OP is only the seller and as such, he is not liable for any compensation to the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.            OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing the separate written statement raising preliminary objections that after receipt of request/complaint from the complainant, the technician was appointed to look in to and attend the service request and when the technicians of the OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant, it was noticed that the size of the room, where AC unit was installed, was quite bigger than the capacity of the AC installed therein; that the unit was installed in a drawing room with approximate area of 350 sq. fts. and this fact was also informed to the complainant but to utter dismay in spite of the understanding and admitting his own fault, started shouting at the technician; that on verification of AC, it was revealed that here was problem in the Printed Circuit Board (PCB) of indoor unit and that problem in PCB generally arises due to improper supply of electricity or electricity fluctuation and the OP does not hold any control on these events; that the technician to serve better replace the entire indoor unit and brand new unit without any charges.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

5.            Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.D1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had purchased a Split A.C. of Dikin Company on 15.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.34,000/-, copy of bill is Annexure-C1, copy of warranty card is Annexure C-2 and copy of service completion certificate is Annexure C3.  The counsel of complainant further contended that many times, the complainant called the Ops to remove the defects but three times, the employees of Ops have came to remove the defects but the employees of Ops have not come after 11.07.2017.  He further contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops because they have not replaced or removed the defects of A.C.

9.             On the other hand, both the counsel of Ops No.1 & 2 admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the A.C. in question on 15.07.2015.  It is also admitted that 2/3 times, the employee of Ops have removed the defects of A.C. but there is no deficiency of Ops because the installation was done by the complainant by the private person i.e. also mentioned in the written statement.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The counsel of Op No.2 has placed reliance upon the case law titled as A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. A.P.Agencies bearing Civil Appeal No.2682 of 1982, date of decision: 13.03.1989 (SC); M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Civil Appeal no.5086 of 2013, date of decision: 03.07.2013 (SC); Tata Eng. And Locomotive Company Ltd. and another Vs. Sunil Bhasin and another bearing first appeal No.500 of 2006, date of decision: 29.02.2008 (NC) and Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Arilines, bearing Civil Appeal No.8701 of 1997, date of decision: 02.11.1999 (SC).

                During the course of arguments on behalf of Ops, again the counsel of complainant contended that he has purchased the A.C. in question from the Op no.1 and the employee of Op No.1 has installed the split A.C. in his house and he has no knowledge about the installation of A.C. but it is the duty of Ops to install the A.C. properly in his house.   So, it is the deficiency of Ops not to install the A.C. in his house properly.

10.            As per record, we have seen that the A.C. of the complainant is not working properly and not cooling from the month of April, 2016 and three times, the complaint was made by the complainant to remove the defects.  Every time, the employee of the Ops tried to remove the defects from the A.C. but the A.C. was not working properly and not doing cooling.  So, from the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The authorities submitted by learned counsel for the Op No.2 are not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case. 

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the A.C. in question of the same description as purchased by the complainant from the Op No.1.  However, it is made clear that if the same A.C. is not available with the Ops, then the Ops will pay the purchased amount of A.C. to the complainant.  The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  The complainant is also directed to deposit the defective A.C. alongwith accessories with the service-centre of Ops.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:18.12.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.