DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 392
Instituted on: 18.09.2018
Decided on: 08.03.2021
Sanjeev Kumar Garg alias Kala son of Dev Raj Garg, resident of H.No.865, Ward No.5, Dashmesh Nagar, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s. Ahuja Electronics, Gaushala Road, Bhawanigarh-148026 Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Proprietor/partner (Authorized dealer of Lloyd Company).
2. Jaispy Service Centre, Opposite Jiwan Shuttering Store, Kishanprua, Sangrur (Authorized service centre of Lloyd Company) through its Manager.
3. Havells India Limited, 904, Surya Kiran Building, KG Marg, New Delhi-110 001 through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant: :Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.
For the OP No.1 :Shri GS Shergill,Adv.
For the OP No.2 &3 :Shri Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Garg, complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one ton split air conditioner of Lloyd company from the OP number 1 by paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- and at that time the OP gave one year warranty/guarantee to the air conditioner. The grievance of the complainant is that during the warranty period i.e. after some days i.e. in June, 2018 the said air conditioner started to give cooling problem and as such the complainant immediately approached Op umber 1 and requested to remove the defect therein in the air conditioner. Then the OP number 1 sent mechanic at the premises of the complainant, who serviced the air conditioner and gave assurance that now it will work perfectly. Further case of the complainant is that again the air conditioner on 27.7.2018 suffered with the same problem and the complainant lodged complaint with the OP and the mechanic of the Op checked the air conditioner and changed some parts of the air conditioner and also filled the gas and gave assurance to the complainant that now the said air conditioner will not give any problem, but despite that the air conditioner was suffering with the cooling problem. Thus, the complainant requested the Ops to replace the air conditioner with a new one, but nothing was done. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the air conditioner with new one of the same model or to refund the purchase price of the same and further to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the OP number 1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is baseless and devoid of any merit, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as the complainant has concealed true and material facts, that the air conditioner in question has been checked in the presence of the complainant and did not find any fault, only minor repair was made by the said technician and that the complainant was fully satisfied with the AC and its working, but the complainant with ulterior motive to take undue benefit of the Commission filed the present complaint. It is further stated that as per the last visit by the technician of the OP on 7.9.2018, the AC was working perfectly OK as per its technical specifications. The customer has installed an under tonnage AC in his shop in an open area and further using it for commercial purpose, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question and warranty of it is also admitted. It is further stated that on 27.7.2018, the OPs sent the mechanic to the complainant who found some issue with the compressor as the AC has been installed in an open shop are due to which the compressor of the AC was getting over heated. It is stated that there is no defect in the air conditioner in question.
4. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased one ton split air conditioner of Lloyd company from the OP number 1 by paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- and at that time the OP gave one year warranty/guarantee to the air conditioner. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that during the warranty period i.e. after some days i.e. in June, 2018 the said air conditioner started to give cooling problem and as such the complainant immediately approached Op umber 1 and requested to remove the defect therein in the air conditioner. Then the OP number 1 sent mechanic at the premises of the complainant, who serviced the air conditioner and gave assurance that now it will work perfectly. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that again the air conditioner on 27.7.2018 suffered with the same problem and the complainant lodged complaint with the OP and the mechanic of the Op checked the air conditioner and changed some parts of the air conditioner and also filled the gas and gave assurance to the complainant that now the said air conditioner will not give any problem, but despite that the air conditioner was suffering with the cooling problem. As such the complainant has sought refund of the cost of the air conditioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 and 3 has argued that the air conditioner in question has been fully set right to the satisfaction of the complainant and that there is no defect in the air conditioner at all. The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that on 27.7.2018, the OPs sent the mechanic to the complainant who found some issue with the compressor as the AC has been installed in an open shop area due to which the compressor of the AC was getting over heated. It is stated that there is no defect in the air conditioner in question. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice which shows that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.33,200/- and Ex.C-3 is the copy of messages received from the OP. On the other hand, the OP number 2 and 3 has tendered Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit of Shri Harsh Aggarwal, Joint General Manager of the company and has deposed as per the written version, Ex.OP2&3/2 is the affidavit of Saleem Khan, Ex.OP2&3/3 is the copy of warranty terms and conditions, Ex.OP2&3/4 and Ex.OP2&3/5 is the copy of job sheet which shows that the air conditioner was having “major repair/spare replace’. As such, the learned counsel for the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed. All the record clearly proves that the air conditioner in question suffered cooling problem during the warranty period and even during the warranty period the OPs replaced some parts and filled the gas in the air conditioner, which clearly reveals that the air conditioner was having some defects, which were though repaired but the cooling was not restored. Accordingly, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to repair the air conditioner in question to the satisfaction of the complainant.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to repair/set right the air conditioner to the satisfaction of the complainant. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation. This order be complied with by the opposite party within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 8, 2021.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
