Punjab

Sangrur

CC/616/2014

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Deol Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    616

                                                Instituted on:      12.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       01.04.2015

 

Gurmeet Singh son of Hardeep Singh, R/o House No.1185, Near 66 KB Grid, Badrukhan,  Barnala Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Deol Electronics, near Truck Union, Kakra Road, Bhawanigarh, through its Prop.

2.             IFB Industries Ltd. Vasika No.505, Village Threkay, Baldevware Housing Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its M.D.

3.             King Refrigerator, Prem Basti, Near Malwa Gramin Bank, Sangrur through its Prop.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               Shri S.K. Hareri, Adv.

For OP No.1&3         :               Exparte.

For OP No.2              :               Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Member.

 

1.             Shri Gurmeet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one a new one ton AC 5 star of IFB vide bill number 474 dated 7.3.2014 for Rs.29,000/- from OP number 1.  It is further averred in the complaint that after some days of its use, the complainant found that the air conditioner is not giving proper cooling and the compressor of the same made loudly noises and disturbed the environment of room, as such, he approached OP number 1 to get the defects removed.  The OP number 1 advised the complainant to call the toll free number, as such the complainant made so many calls, but  all in vain.  After some days, two officials of the service centre i.e. from OP number 3 visited the house of the complainant and tried to find out the problem in the air conditioner, but they failed to find out the problem and lastly told that there is manufacturing defect in the air conditioner.  Thereafter the complainant requested the Ops to replace the air conditioner with a new one, but all in vain and nothing happened despite service of legal notice upon the OPs on 23.9.2014. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant has prayed the that OPs be directed to replace the air conditioner with a new one or to make the payment of Rs.29,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OPs number 1 and 3 were  proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. It is stated that the relationship between  OP number 2 and OP number 1 is on principal to principal basis. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the appliance in question.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the split AC of one ton from OP number 1. It is denied that the air conditioner in question is not working properly or there is any noise at all in the air conditioner.  It is stated that the complainant has concocted a false story in order to mislead the Forum. It is submitted that the service of the air conditioner was performed on 9.7.2014 and nothing inordinate was found in the performance of the air conditioner.  It is stated that there was low voltage problem and the complainant was advised to provide voltage supply varying between 220 to 240 for getting the optimum performance of the AC.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of replacement form, Ex.C-3 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP2/2 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one IFB air conditioner in question from Op number 1 on 7.3.2014 vide bill number 474, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  The grievance of the complainant is that during the warranty period and within a short period of purchase of the air conditioner in question, it started to give less cooling.  Further the complainant has drawn our attention towards the copy of job order sheet, which clearly shows that the air conditioner in question was giving ‘less cooling’ and in the said job order in the column ‘ branch analysis and recommendation’ the same is lying blank.   As such, the complainant has alleged that the air conditioner was defective one, which requires to be replaced with a new one or to refund its price.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has contended vehemently that the air conditioner was giving less cooling as there was no proper voltage and the voltage was less than the required one.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has drawn our attention towards the copies of job cards Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/3,but we are unable to accept such job cards, as it does not contain the signature of the complainant or any of the official, rather the same are system generated job cards, which can be prepared at any time. OP number 2 has produced only the affidavit of Anil Kumar Johri, Executive Taxation.  There is nothing in the affidavit that he went to the premises of the complainant and found that there was less voltage and due to less voltage the air conditioner was not working and not giving proper cooling.  Further the Op number 2 has not produced any affidavit of the official who visited the premises of the complainant to set right the air conditioner in question.  Moreover, it is admitted case of the complainant that the air conditioner gave problem of less cooling in the warranty period of one year itself.  To support such allegations, the complainant has also produced on record his own affidavit Ex.C-1.   It is on the record that the complainant spent a huge amount of Rs.29,000/- on purchase of the air conditioner in question, but the same found defective which was not giving proper cooling, as the only motive for which the air conditioner was purchased is to get the cooling i.e. cool air, which the air conditioner in question was not giving, as such, the very purpose of purchase of the air conditioner was defeated.  In the Circumstances of the case, we found that the OPs have miserably failed to set right the air conditioner in question and we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Samsung India Electronics Limited versus Bindu and another 2005(2) CPC 457 (State Commission Haryana), wherein in the similar circumstances, the complaint regarding replacement of the refrigerator was allowed.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Ashoke Khan versus Abdul Karim and others 2006(1) CLT 211 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that where manufacturing defect is proved on record, then both the manufacturer and dealer shall be liable.  

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the air conditioner in question with a new one of the same model and instal the same in the premises of the complainant free of cost within a period of thirty days, failing which the OPs shall be liable to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.29,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realisation. We further order the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 1, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member