Complainant Prabjit Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to remove the defect of AC or replace the same with new one or return the amount of Rs.24,500/- alongwith interest to him. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as mental pain, agony and harassment to him or any other relief as the Forum may deem fit, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that on 20.6.2016 he had purchased a Air Conditioner (AC) make Blue Star company of 1.1 ton vide serial No.GA16E01894, Model No.SW13GA from opposite party no.1 for Rs.24,500/- and the AC was under warranty for one year i.e. w.e.f. 20.6.2016 till 20.7.2017. He has further pleaded that A.C. in this summer season some defect was occurred and it was not working properly and on his complaint the employee of opposite parties replaced the compressor, but even after replacing compressor the AC was not working properly. After that he approached the opposite party no.1 and complained the matter on 5.5.2017 vide complaint No.B1705051486, again on 10.5.2017 vide complaint no.S170510020 and again on 22.5.2017 vide complaint no.B1705222469, but the opposite parties linger on the matter with one pretext or the other. Many times he approached the opposite parties and requested them to repair the defect but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.           Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint against the opposite party no.1 is not maintainable and the duty to provide services after purchase is on the opposite party no.2 which the authorized service centres of the A.C in dispute. Hence the opposite party no.1 cannot be held responsible. On merits, the complaint of the complainant was forwarded to service centre of opposite party no.2 without any delay. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 was only sale centre and not the service centre. The service centre is being maintained by opposite party no.2 independently and there is no role of opposite party no.1 in any manner. While denying and controverting other allegations leveled by the complainant, opposite party no.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party to file the present complaint and the complainant had purchased the said product on 20.06.2016 and the first protest/complaint was lodged by the complainant only on 05.05.2017 i.e. after expiry of  almost eleven months without any complaint and therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong which he is trying to take advantage of by misusing the process of law and illegally seeking the indulgence of this Hon’ble Forum and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. On merits, it was submitted that  the complainant was provided with three free services i.e. First after three months, second after next three months and third after next three months from the purchase of the said product but admittedly the complainant has not availed any of the free services provided to him, which proves carelessness of the complainant in maintaining and caring the product for desired output. It was next submitted that the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended by the opposite parties on various dates and admittedly upon discovery of the problem in the Compressor of the said AC has replaced the same without any charges. Opposite parties upon receipt of the summons by the Forum visited the residence of the complainant to rectify and repair the AC of the complainant but the complainant himself has refused to get the said AC checked/repaired. The abovesaid acts of the complainant in refusing the said AC checked and verified is clear indicative of the malafide on the part of the complainant just to harass and pressurize the opposite parties to get the AC replaced without their being any fault in the same. It was further submitted that the opposite parties will repair the AC as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, if any, default is found in the said AC. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

6.       Sh.Pankaj Kumar Partner of opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.      Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Gupta Manager Legal Ex.OP2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2 and Ex.OP-2/3 and closed the evidence.

8.        We have heard the ld.counsel for the both parties and after going through the contentions of both the complainant and the opposite parties the Forum comes to the opinion that it is the admitted fact of both the parties that A.C. was purchased on 20.06.2016 and complaint was made by complainant on 5.5.2017. It clearly shows that when the complaint was made the said A.C. was in warranty period. Moreover, in the written version of the opposite party no.2 it was alleged by the party that they will repair the A.C. as per terms and conditions of warranty.  As opposite party no.1 is sale centre therefore opposite party no.1 cannot bring him out from the said complaint. Moreover, opposite party no.2 being service centre is responsible to repair the A.C. in dispute without costs as it is within the warranty period and admitted by them that they are ready to repair it free of costs. If the A.C. in dispute cannot be repaired by the opposite party no.2, then the complainant is at liberty to get it done through opposite party no.1.  If they failed to do so then they are directed to replace A.C. in dispute with the same make and model failing which they are directed to refund the price of A.C. in dispute. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days. The case is not decided within stipulated period due to pendency of heavy work.

9.           Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

Announced:                             (Rachna Arora)                   (Rajita Sareen)
September 17, 2018.                    Member                         Presiding Member

 MK