Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/421

Sarabjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mitshubhsh havy ind.Ltld - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Virk Adv.

02 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 421 of 14.07.2015

Date of Decision          :   02.05.2016

              

Sarabjeet Singh son of Sh.Paramjeet Singh r/o HE-88, Jamalpur Colony, Near Goal Market, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Mitsubishi heavy Industries Ltd., through International Aircon Pvt. Ltd.,10179-G1, Mall W.E.A. Abdul Aziz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

2.Nexus Electronics-II, B-23-4498, Samrala Chowk, Shingar Cinema Road, Ludhiana through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory Nitin Jain.

3.Nitin Jain Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory Nexus Electronics-II, B-23-4498, Samrala Chowk, Shingar Cinema Road, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

    (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.B.S.Virk, Advocate.

For Ops                         :         Sh.K.L.Kochar, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant, Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against OPs, by claiming that he purchased one Mitsubishi Split A.C. 1.1 Ton- 5 Star CRK13CLVDXK from OP2 vide bill No.481 dated 12.5.2015 for consideration of Rs.34,500/-. Op2 charged Rs.1200/- for fitting/installation of said A.C. Op2 assured the complainant that except  this fitting/installation charges, the complainant will not have to pay any amount to the mechanic for fitting/installation. No copper pipe was provided by the OPs with the said A.C., due to which, the complainant had to purchase the copper pipe along with their cover on the same day from Maharaja Spare Center, 85, Model Gram, Chowk Kochar Market, Ludhiana vide Bill No.51481 dated 12.5.2015 for Rs.1540/-. Mr.Rajinder Singh, Mechanic of OP2 and OP3 visited the house of complainant for installation of A.C. and he refused to use or install the purchased copper pipe/cover by the complainant. The said mechanic claimed that he will install his own copper pipe which was brought by him. When the complainant refused to oblige, then said mechanic called upon OP3 and after discussion, he (mechanic) called upon the complainant that he will charge Rs.60/- per feet for the installation of the AC with copper pipe. When the complainant called upon OP2 and OP3, then they flatly refused to accede the request of the complainant by claiming that if he wants to get the A.C.installed, then he will have to pay the demanded amount to their mechanic Mr.Rajinder Singh. Thereafter, complainant called upon OP2 and OP3 to pay back Rs.1200/- charged from him as installation charges of A.C., but OP2 and Op3 refused by claiming that once the bill has been generated, they cannot alter or change the product or bill. So, complainant has to pay Rs.780/- to Mr.Rajinder Singh for installation of A.C. 13 feet copper pipe was used for the installation of A.C. Rs.60/- per feet were charged for the said pipe. It is claimed that unfair trade practice adopted by Ops and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, refund of Rs.780/- along with compensation for mental pain, harassment and sufferings of Rs.90,000/- claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by Ops, purchase of A.C. in question admitted, but by claiming that complainant himself disclosed as if he has already got installed the copper pipe for fitting of split A.C. On such disclosure, OP2 disclosed the complainant that Rs.1200/- will be charged by the labour from him as fitting charges of split A.C. So, Rs.1200/- as A.C. fitting charges from the complainant were charged and thereafter, mechanic Mr.Rajinder Singh was sent, who on reaching at the spot found as if the required copper pipe for connecting Split A.C. was not got fitted by the complainant. The said mechanic disclosed the complainant that copper pipe is to be got affixed by him(complainant), on which, mechanic was called upon by the complainant to install the said pipe required for connectivity. Mechanic Mr.Rajinder Singh disclosed the complainant that additional amount for installation of the said copper pipe will be charged, on which, the complainant agreed for paying those charges. After copper pipe was brought by the complainant, mechanic Mr.Rajinder Singh affixed the copper pipe by cutting the walls etc., and thereafter, he charged Rs.780/- as labour charges. These charges were claimed for installation of 13 feet copper wire. After doing this additional work of installation of copper wire, A.C. was installed at the premises of the complainant. Now the said A.C. is functioning properly and as such, complaint filed by levelling false and baseless allegations, due to which, the same merits dismissal. Allegations of deficiency in service on the part of OPs denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C7 and then closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Hemant Jain, Area Sales Manager of International Aircon Pvt. Ltd. along with document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of parties, but oral arguments alone advanced. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, A.C. in question was purchased by the complainant from OP2 vide bill Ex.C1 for consideration of Rs.34,500/-. A.C. fitting charges of Rs.1200/- were also charged from the complainant through this bill Ex.C1. The bone of contention remains as to whether these fitting charges amounting to Rs.1200/- includes the amount of fixing copper wire by the mechanic Mr.Rajinder Singh or not.

7.                It is the claim of the complainant himself that the copper pipe was not provided by the Ops, despite charging of Rs.1200/- as installation charges of A.C. After going through A.C. Installation Form Ex.C2, it is made out that pipe not included in accessories of sold Mitsubishi A.C. Cost of pipe to be charged extra as per Ex.C2, AC Installation Form issued by OP2. In view of these contents of Ex.C2, it is obvious that at the time of getting AC Installation Form signed from the complainant, it was made known to the complainant that copper pipe/wire to be provided by him. So, certainly submission advanced by the counsel for the OPs has force that actually charges of Rs.780/- were claimed for installation of copper wire. That copper wire   has to be installed by cutting the wall from outside and inside and as such, cost of that extra work has to be borne by the complainant. Submission of counsel for OPs in this respect has force.

7.                Complainant purchased the copper wire/pipe for consideration of Rs.1540/- vide bill Ex.C3 from Maharaja Spare Centre. As the cost of copper wire was extra to the installation charges and as such, if complainant had paid Rs.1540/- to Maharaja Spare Centre, then it was because of his obligation to provide the copper wire/pipe. It is the case of OPs that complainant disclosed as if the copper wire had already been installed, but in fact the same was not lying installed at the site, when mechanic Mr.Rajinder Singh visited the spot. Those assertions contained in the written statement absolutely are borne from the circumstances referred above because contents of AC Installation Form Ex.C2 provides that cost of pipe required for installation of A.C not included in the installation charges. So, if mechanic Mr.Rajinder Singh charged Rs.780/- for installation of A.C on account of extra performed work of fitting copper pipe/wire for providing connectivity with machine of Split AC, then deficiency in service on the part of OPs cannot be found. Rather, charges of Rs.780/- for fitting of copper pipe/wire was due to extra rendered services. As deficiency in service on the part of OPs is not proved and as such, complaint merits dismissal.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Babita)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:02.05.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.