Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/762/2016

Dr. Sheenu Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Goyal Adv. & Pradeep Sharma Adv.

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	762 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	12.09.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	14.07.2017

 

 

 

 

Dr.Sheenu Aggarwal W/o Sh.Sushil Aggarwal, resident of House No.1221, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Managing Director, Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.

2]  Modern Electronics through its Proprietor, SCO 13-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

 Sh.Abhishek, Adv. for OP No.1.

 OP No.2 Exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one Lloyd Portable AC on 13.5.2016 for Rs.24,000/- from OP No.1 vide bill Ann.C-1.  It is averred that the said AC after few days of its installation, stopped giving cooling. The problem was reported to the Opposite Parties several times, but they did not pay any heed to remove the defect and to solve the issue. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.2 instead told the complainant that the portable AC works like the cooler and if she wants cooling, the complainant should have its air directly on herself.  Thereafter, the complainant requested the OPs to either refund the money or exchange the AC with the product which cools the room, but nothing was done.  Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice, but OPs refused to entertain the request of the complainant (Ann.C-2 & C-3). In addition the complainant alleged that she had been supplied with 1 Ton of AC instead of 1.5 ton as agreed. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant at the time of sale, was already informed that these portable A.C.’s are meant for the spot & emergency cooling and not for cooling the room. It is stated that the complainant never asked for 1.5 Ton AC and that Opposite Party No.1 has only one product in Portable AC and that is of 1 Ton capacity of Lloyd.  It is also stated that the complainant never approached the Service Centre of OP No.1 for making complaint about the portable AC is not cooling.  It is submitted that there is no question of replacement or for compensation as the complainant was already informed about the functioning and exact usage of Portable AC.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party NO.2 after putting in appearance through Sh.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate and availing several opportunities, did not file reply/evidence and later on absented, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.3.2007. 

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OP No.1.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Admittedly, the complainant purchased one Lloyd Portable AC on 13.5.2016 for Rs.24,000/- from OP No.1 vide bill Ann.C-1.

 

7]       The complainant stated that the said Portable AC has no cooling effect, whereas countering the allegation of the complainant, the Opposite Party submitted that the portable AC in question is designed for Spot Cooling or Emergency Cooling only having capacity of 1 Ton.

 

8]       In order to decide the present lis, it is worth to mention the relevant contents mentioned in the brochure explaining the features of the product in question, which are reproduced as under:-

 “This mobile air conditioner is a new generation air conditioner which is designed for being used in bedroom, study room, lobby, office, meeting room, warehouse, attics, sports hall and other entertainment room. It characteristic of flexibility characteristic enable easy adjustment to desired room temperature and humidity.  Besides, the built-in filter can remove floating dust, purify air to create a healthy working environment.

It is designed under novelty, practicality and convenience principles to satisfy the needs for convenient, efficient and mobile small-sized air conditioner.  It features easy using, no need for complicated installation and convenient maintenance. Besides, the double control system (remote control/manual control optional) simplifies its operation.

The unit is highly competitive to other cooling capable product. With tidy structure, multiple functions, auto-drain function and reasonable ventilation design, the unit minimizes noise and power consumption. Aiming at harmonizing human life, our company adopts human factors into design, and produces this high efficiency mobile air conditioner.”      

 

         From the averments of the complainant as well from the pleas set out by the OP in  its reply, it is clear enough that the Portable AC in question is not producing even the desired cooling result, as claimed in above reproduced contents showcasing the featues of the product in question.  It is on record that when the complainant complained about non-cooling of the said Portable AC, the Engineers of the OP Inspected the Portable AC and reported regarding grilling temperature of the AC only and failed to notify that whether the Portable AC was producing cooling affect or not at the place where it was installed/placed. 

 

9]       In addition, it is right to mention that during the course of arguments, the ld.Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the company has stopped the manufacturing of Portable AC’s.  This additional information reflects that the new product i.e. Portable AC’s launched by the Opposite Party No.1 failed to produce the desired results as has been rejected by the public in general.

 

         Even, if we leave aside the admission of ld.Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, even then the Opposite Party No.1 failed in their turn to produce on record any evidence showing the positive comments from the general public in respect to the smooth and effective functioning of the Portable AC’s in general.  In this scenario, we are of the considered opinion that the product in question i.e. Portable AC, manufactured by OP No.1 for a particular purpose, failed to meet out the standards as claimed by the Company in its manual/booklet/brochure explaining the features of the product in question. Thus, the company shall be liable for such low standard product which is not giving the desired/claimed results.  Undoubtedly, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 is writ large.

 

12]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed against Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.2.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed qua Opposite Party NO.2.  The Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

1. To refund Rs.24,000/- being the invoice price of the product in question;
2. To pay a composite amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing her mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses;

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party NO.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of filing complaint till realization, apart from complying with the directions as at sub-para (i) & (iii) above.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14^th July, 2017             

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                      Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER