BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.360 of 2018
Date of Instt. 31.08.2018
Date of Decision:07.03.2022
Nikhil Sehgal, aged about 38 years, son of Sh. Naval Sehgal, resident of H. No.136, Green Park, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s ETA General Pvt. Ltd., (O General) Corporate Office- SCO- 2475-76, 2nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director, Director/Manager.
2. Usha Refrigeration & Air Conditioners, 455, Lajpat Nagar Market, Jalandhar Authorized Dealers, Sale and Services, through its Proprietor/Partner.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Gopal Thakur, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased the AC Make O General, 2 Ton Split AC, bearing Model No.AOGA24FTTAH, Serial No.TO13801, Model No.ASGA24FTTA, Serial No.TO14887 vide retail invoice No.2770 dated 04.05.2015, issued by OP No.2. The said AC was sold by the OP No.2 for Rs.57,000/- by cash with the assurances that the AC shall function properly, proper cooling shall provide, throw chill air, the assurances regarding functioning of the AC was given by the OP. The assurances given by the OPs were false, as the AC is not functioning properly. After the purchase of the AC, the performance of the AC was not good, not upto the mark, did not function satisfactory, it did not function properly upto the satisfaction of the complainant. Apparently, there is manufacturing defect with the piece supplied to the complainant by OP No.2 and for that, the complainant had been approaching the OPs to replace the AC and the defects were pointed out by the complainant during the warranty period, but the OPs did not care to the complaints of the complainant. That right from the day of installation of the AC, it did not function properly to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant made several complaints on phone, but the complaints were not considered and the defects in AC was not rectified. It was pointed out to the complainant in the year 2017 that the PCB Box is not functioning, the complainant had to pay Rs.10,000/- for changing of PCB box. It is pertinent to mention here that the AC is/was knocking, vibration and is not giving the cool air, the oil is also leaking. The air pressure is not constant, sometime it increases and sometime it decreases of its own. The mechanics were sent by the OP No.2, they made trial methods and experiments, even the complainant had to pay Rs.8000/- for filling up the gas. The mechanics sent by the OP were not even trained, qualified were not having proper experience and knowledge. So, they could not rectify the defence in the AC. Inspite of the several, trials and experiments were made by the OP No.2, they could not improve and not able to satisfy the functioning of the AC in question. The legal notices were sent to the OPs, but the same are not replied. That the complainant had been lodging the complaints to the OPs right from the day of its purchase and installation the present complaint is within warranty period, the warranty is given for five years from its purchase, the AC was purchased on 04.05.2015 and the complaint is filed within a warranty period. That the complainant has suffered a loss i.e. mental harassment, mental tension, agony etc. and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.57,000/- i.e. the price of the AC with interest @ 15% from the date of the purchase of the AC till receiving of the amount. Further the OPs are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the legal charges, which the complainant is to bear for giving the notice and filing the complaint. The complainant is also entitled to refund of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest i.e. amount paid towards PCB Charges and Rs.8000/- towards the gas charges and further Rs.60,000/- be imposed to the OP for supplying the defective piece of AC.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the present complaint filed by the complainant is without any technical report. That the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. That the complainant has got no locus-standi to file and maintain the present complaint. That the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder. That the complaint has got no cause of action against the OPs. That the present complaint is nothing but an outcome of mere sheer and greed of the mind of the complainant. That the complainant has concocted a false story just only to grab unlawful benefits from answering OP company. That the answering OP company has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide sr. no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint, no job sheet number has been provided by the complainant and for the reason, no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never approached to the answering OP, which means there is no problem in the unit and present complaint has been filed just to grab benefits illegally from the answering OP. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Company. It is submitted that the company provides one year comprehensive warranty and four years warranty only for the compressor of the unit and in case any problem occurs then the same would be repair as per company policy and also warranty means repair and nor replacement and the said provided warranty is subject to some conditions and the warranty shall be void in the breach of provided terms and conditions in the warranty. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the AC by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant, very minutely.
6. The case of the complainant is that he purchased AC with brand of ‘O General’ on 04.05.2015 for Rs.57,000/-. Soon after the purchase of the AC, the functioning of the AC was not proper. There is a manufacturing defect with the AC supplied to the complainant by the OP No.2. The complainant had been approaching the OP number of times during the warranty period, but the OPs never took care to the complaint of the complainant. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that when the complainant again made a complaint in year 2017, he was informed that he had to pay Rs.10,000/- for changing of PCB Box. Despite spending this amount, the AC did not function well. The complainant has proved on record the bill of AC ExC-1 and detail of AC Ex.c-2, photographs of the AC have been proved Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9 and submitted that despite legal notice Ex.C-10, the OPs have not repaired the AC nor replaced the AC. Request has been made to allow the complaint.
7. The case of the OP is that the complainant has not filed on record any document to show that there was any technical defect. No bill or receipt has filed on record to show that he has paid Rs.10,000/- for changing PCB Box, no job sheet has been proved on record. He has further submitted that it has not been proved that the AC was not functioning proper, no opinion of any expert has been filed on record. No document has been filed to show that he has been approaching the OPs. The warranty has already been expired, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has proved on record the warranty of the AC Ex.R-1 and submitted that the complaint is time barred. Therefore, the same be dismissed.
8. The complainant has submitted in his complaint that right from the day of installation of the AC, it did not function well and the complainant made several complaints on phone, but to prove this fact, there is no copy of complaint on the file. It is mentioned in the bottom of the Retail Invoice Ex.C-1 that goods once sold will not be returnable. Also in document Annexure R-1, it is mentioned that ‘M/s ETA General Pvt. Ltd. warrants to the Original Purchaser of General Air Conditioner (except the grill, knobs, remote and add-on plastic parts) that for a period of twelve months from the date of purchase, the company will repair or replace free of charge any part or parts of the AC, which proves upon inspection by the Company or any of its Sales and Service Dealers to have been defective due to faulty material or workmanship’. It is submitted by the complainant in his complaint that the said AC was purchased on 04.05.2015 and the defect in PCB Box occurred in the year 2017, meaning thereby after the expiry of warranty period of one year. No document has been filed by the complainant to show that there was a manufacturing defect. No expert opinion has been filed nor any such certificate of any expert to prove the technical or manufacturing defect has been filed by the complainant. So, from all the angles, the complaint of the complainant failed and thus, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
07.03.2022 Member President
