Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/60

Satinder Pal Kaur Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Carrier Midea India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Kalsy Adv.

27 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:60 dated 30.01.2019                                                 Date of decision: 27.01.2022

 

Satinderpal Kaur Gill aged about 45 years wife of Sh.Harpreet Singh Gill, r/o 84-A, Golden Avenue, Baranhara, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

 

1.M/s Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector-32, Gurgaon now Gurugram, Haryana (122001), through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Nexus Electronics, 44-A, KIM, R.K.Tower, Rishi Nagar, Lower Ground Floor, Ludhiana (Punjab), through its owner/Manager.

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties

 

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

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.A.K.Kalsy, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Exparte

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that she purchased one split air conditioner of 1.5 ton from the OP2 vide invoice No.64 dated 05.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.40,500/-. The air conditioner was defective from the very beginning as it had some inherent manufacturing defect. The air conditioner would stop running after every few minutes or sometimes after few hours. Every time the complainant had to switch off the power supply and restart it after few minutes. This problem persisted. The complainant contacted the OP2 and brought the defect to its notice. However, the OP2 pointed out that the stabilizer was defective. The complainant got the stabilizer replaced with new one but the defect in the air conditioner still persisted. Thereafter, it was pointed out to the complainant that perhaps the complainant had less load of electricity but it was only a lame excuse on the part of the OPs. The complainant and her husband personally visited the OP2 on 06.06.2018, 15.06.2018 and 22.06.2018 and also made telephonic calls to get their grievance redressed but to no avail. Some technician visited the premises of the complainant to check the air conditioner but nothing could be done by them to rectify the defect in the AC. Later on, OP2 promised that he could get the compressor replaced with the new one but even that was not done. The complainant sent emails to the OP1 on 04.10.2018 which was acknowledged but no action was taken. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the cost of the air conditioner of Rs.40,500/- and along with an of Rs.5000/- charged on account of replacement of stabilizer with interest @12% per annum and with compensation of Rs.1 lacs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OPs did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.06.2019 passed by our predecessor.  

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit as Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.

5.                In the affidavit Ex.CA, the complainant has reiterated the entire case as set forth in the complaint. She has further stated that the air conditioner stopped functioning after few days from its purchase. The air conditioner would automatically switch off and to restart it, the complainant had to switch the power on again. She has further stated that she contacted OP2 and brought the defect to its notice but the problem was not rectified by the OPs. It is further evidence that when the problem persisted, the OP2 promised that he would get the compressor replaced as the same was defective but even the compressor was not replaced. The exparte evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted on the file as the OPs have not contested the case, even otherwise, it inspires confidence. On the basis of the uncontroverted evidence led by the complainant, it can safely be held that the OPs have sold 1.5 ton air conditioner to the complainant which had some inherent manufacturing defect from the beginning itself which was not rectified by the OPs. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to replace the defective air conditioner with new one or to refund the cost of air conditioner of Rs.40,500/- along with composite compensation and litigation costs of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte with an order that the OPs will either replace the defective air conditioner with new one or refund the cost of the air conditioner of Rs.40,500/- along with composite compensation and litigation costs of Rs.8000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

7.                           Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.01.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma