Complainant Manohar Lal Sharma has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to replace the Air Conditioner with the A.C. for which the opposite party had actually charged and which was selected/purchased by him or to pay the difference between price of the AC supplied and cost of AC and to refund full price of Stabilizer. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Lloyd 1.5 Ton Inverter LS18DCN Split AC for Rs.44,002/- but the opposite party assured that he will supply this AC alongwith stabilizer for Rs.3500/-. The opposite party charged money for the above mentioned AC, but to his utter surprise, the opposite party delivered two different models of indoor unit and outdoor unit of AC and was different from the model which was selected by him at the time of purchase of AC. The indoor model was LS18AAH and outdoor model was LS18HC and price of this model, according the price list was only Rs.28,601/- (Rs.29,498/-). The opposite party also not supplied the stabilizer which was shown and agreed to supply, which went out of order soon after putting into use. He approached the opposite party and requested for replacement of the stabilizer, but the opposite party charged Rs.4850/- from him for issuance of new stabilizer. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party on number of times and requested him to supply the air conditioner which was agreed and selected by him or to refund the amount receive in excess on account of supply of inferior quality air conditioner and also for the refund of stabilizer. Initially the opposite party put the matter with one excuse or the other by saying that his mechanic/representative has wrongly installed other air conditioner than the selected and for which he had actually paid, but two days back the opposite party flatly refused to take any action into the matter and threatened him to go wherever he wants. Thus, it is a case of clear cut deficiency, gross negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party has charged price legally. The alleged price list is not the legal one. The opposite party delivered only that Unit which was liked by the complainant and after settlement of price, the price of stabilizer is always separate. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and photographs of Split Air Conditioner and Stablizer Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Surinder Kumar son of Chaman Lal employee of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
6. Written arguments not filed.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the parties, oral arguments advanced by its respective counsel and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
8. Complainant on his part is very objective with his complaint. The required Air Conditioner (A.C.) purchased from opposite party has been overcharged and the stabilizer supplied alongwith was of sub standard material which got damaged within a few days of its purchase. Complainant has placed on record the model and price list which clearly mentions the model of the A.C. purchased and the price applicable for that A.C. at the time of purchase as also complainant has placed on record original photographs of the said A.C. Opposite party on its part has failed to produce/place on record the price list of the said A.C. applicable at the time of purchase. Also the stabilizer sold/supplied by the opposite party to the complainant alongwith the A.C. got damaged within a short period of less than two months of its purchase clearly implying that the stabilizer was of sub standard material and complainant was forced to pay Rs.4850/- for its replacement. Supply of sub standard stabilizer needs to be compensated adequately as also the price difference overcharged by the opposite party for the A.C. needs to be returned to the complainant.
9. From the above discussion the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount charged for the model number of the A.C. LS18HC Split A.C. 1.5 tonne LLOYD make. The price of the said A.C. as per price list was of Rs.29498/- while complainant was made to pay Rs.35,000/- for the same. The difference be refunded alongwith Rs.4850/- i.e. cost of stabilizer. The opposite party is further directed to pay the entire amount to the complainant alongwith 6% P.A. interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- on account mental harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within a period 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
10. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (R.S.Sukhija)
OCT 20, 2022 Member
*YP*
