BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA. 

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 83 of 2014                                                              

                                                          Date of Institution         :    25.6.2014

                                                          Date of Decision   :    4.8.2016 

Mahesh Kumar Lohia, aged 45 years son of Sh. Satya Narayan, r/o Gali Masjid Wali, Nohria Bazar, Sirsa, distt. Sirsa.        

                                                                             ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Anucool Air Conditioner, shop no.14-15, Gandhi Market, Sirsa through its owner/Prop (Dealer of Godrej company).

2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd., Pirojshanagar,Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079, India through its Authorized person.

                                                                        ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

          SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh.N.K.Daroliya,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

                   Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2

          ORDER

          Case of complainant is that he had purchased Godrej Air Conditioner  bearing Model No.18FC3 vide invoice no.1006 dt. 17.5.2013 from opposite party no.1 with guarantee of one year against all types of manufacturing defects. But, since the date of its installation, there was problem in the cooling of the A.C  Therefore, he approached opposite party no.1 several times, who got checked out the AC by his Mechanic and detected the problem of less cooling and noise in the A.C. The complainant, thereafter, visited the opposite parties several times to get replaced the A.C., but to no effect. Hence this complaint.

2.                  Upon notice, opposite parties contested the case by filing their separate replies. In their replies, the ops have admitted the sale of A.C. in question and its guarantee against any manufacturing defect. But, it is further pleaded that although in case of compressor, the company charges the cost of gas and service charges. Op no.1 has denied any complaint made by the complainant regarding problem of cooling etc. in the A.C., whereas OP no.2 in its reply has pleaded that only one complaint no.986277 dt. 10.5.2014 was registered for swing problem in the A.C. and flap of AC was not working properly. The flap is a plastic part and not covered under the warranty and as the complainant refused to pay cost of said plastic part, therefore, his complaint was cancelled. There is no defect in the AC.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1- his own affidavit, Ex.C2-cash memo and Ex.C3-complaint regarding repair of AC moved by complainant. Whereas opposite parties have placed on record, affidavit of sh.Babam Mudgil, Branch Manager of Op no.2 Ex.R1.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully

5.                Simple vague denial of opposite parties, is no denial in the eyes of law. It is admitted fact that the AC was purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 for Rs.20800/-.  It is also admitted fact that one complaint no.986277 dt. 10.5.2014 was registered for swing problem in the AC and flap of AC was not working. The AC was purchased on 17.5.2013 and the complaint regarding defect was made on 10.5.2014. But the opposite parties have no nowhere stated that the said problem in the AC was removed while the AC at that time was within warranty period. Thus, selling a defective AC and then not repairing the same, is not only gross deficiency of service, but is also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  

6.                Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties to bring the air conditioner in perfect working order within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise to refund its price of Rs.28000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25.6.2014 till payment. Complainant is also hereby allowed Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Both the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated:4.8.2016.                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.