Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/342/2013

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shish Pal gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Garg Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

None

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                            Complaint No.  342  of  2013.

                                                            Date of institution: 8.5.2013

                                                            Date of decision: 29.7.2015.

Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Shish Pal Gupta, resident of House No. 177, Bharat Sewak Nagar Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                                                  Versus

 

1. M/s Garg Electricals # 58-59-60, Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.
2.  Videocon International Ltd. 14^th K.M. Stone, Pathan Road, Chitegoan, Aurangabad (Maharashtra)-1431105.

 

                                                                                                                                                           …Opposite parties.

                       

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.            

 

Present: Sh. Karnajeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              OP No.1 ex-parte. 

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.     

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Rajesh Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents     (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective AC with new one or to refund the cost of Air Conditioner and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant purchased two Air Conditioner Make Videocon bearing serial No. 1807080 & 703036 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 45000/- vide invoice No. 17683 dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure C-3) which was financed by Bajaj Finance Ltd. The OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the aforesaid Air Conditioner. Hence there is a relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and OPs. It has been further alleged that in the month of July 2012 the Air Conditioner bearing serial No. 1807080 stopped working and a number of complaints were made to the OPs but they postpone the matter with one pretext or the other and the complainant is running from pillar to post but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. It has been further alleged that the Air Conditioner in question were having warranty of one  year which is going to be expire on 9.5.2013  but the OPs were lingering the matter just to elapse the warranty period. Thus, the act and conduct of the OPs is malafide, unfair trade practice, and deficient in service, gross negligent, causing great mental agony, harassment and economic loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections that whenever complainant registered complaint to OP No.1, they forwarded the same to OP No.2 authorized service centre for resolving of complaint.  But the complainant did not register any complaint to OP No.1 prior registering this complaint in the Hon’ble Forum. The OPs No.1 and OP No.2 are always ready to resolve the problem in product. Lastly prayed to allow company service centre to check the AC at customer premises for any problem and they can replace defective part, if any. After filing the written statement OP No.1 failed to appear, hence was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.2.2015.

4.                     OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable,  no locus standi, no cause of action and on merit it has been mentioned that  Videocon is a renowned company in Electronics products and commodities and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated.  The complainant lodged his first complaint with the opposite party No.2 for the first time on 14.5.2012 vide complaint No. KAR1405120038  upon which the Air Conditioner of the complainant was checked and the problem of voltage fluctuation was found. Secondly, the complaint was lodged on 3.9.2012 vide complaint No. KR0309120266 in which free wet service has been done and thereafter on 7.9.2012 the complaint was lodged vide complaint No. KAR0709120043, upon which the Air Conditioner of the complainant was checked and compressor was found to be in a non working condition, which was rectified by tightening the wiring of the same. Further the complaint was lodged on 20.4.2013 vide complaint No. KAR2004130095. The service engineer of the OP visited the premises of complainant and found that there was an abnormal noise in the Air Conditioner. Blade adjustment was done and the said problem was rectified. However, the complainant has put forward a concocted story to get his air conditioner replaced with new one and to grab money from the opposite parties illegally. It has been further mentioned that after its repair the said air conditioner has been working properly in perfect working condition, hence no question of giving any compensation to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered Affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 Warranty card, C-2 Instruction manual and Annexure C-3 Photo copy of bill dated 9.5.2012 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Joginder Kaushik, Authorized Signatory as Annexure R2/X and documents such as photo copy of customer details as Annexure R2/1  to R2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for the OP No.2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.

8                      It is not disputed that complainant had purchased two air conditioners          ( A.C.) from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No. 17683 dated 9.5.2012 for a sum of Rs. 45000/- i.e. Rs. 22500/- each manufactured by Videocon i.e. OP No.2. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that in the month of July 2012, the Air Conditioner bearing serial No. 1807080 stopped working and number of complaints were made to the OPs who assured that within a short span of time they will do the needful by repairing the same and in case of major defect they will replace the same. It has been further stated that since the air conditioner was having manufacturing defect, hence OP No.2 could not repair it and complainant made the complaint time and again with the OP No.2 but all in vain and the complainant since then is running from pillar to post but the OPs had done nothing in this respect. As the OPs had supplied defective air conditioner to the complainant, hence, there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 argued that complainant lodged his first complaint with the OP No.2 on 14.5.2012 vide complaint No. KAR1405120038, upon which, the Air Conditioner of the complainant was checked and the problem of voltage fluctuation was found. The complainant lodged second complaint on 3.9.2012 vide complaint No. KAR 309120266 and it was only free wet service. The third complaint was lodged by the complainant on 7.9.2012 vide complaint No. KAR 0709120043, upon which, the air conditioner of the complainant was checked and compressor was found to be in non working condition which was rectified by tightening the wiring of the same. It has also been further submitted by the OPs that Forth complaint was lodged by the complainant on 20.4.2013 vide complaint No. KAR 2004130095 and service engineer of the OPs found that there was an abnormal noise in the Air Conditioner of the complainant. Blade adjustment was done by the service engineer and the said problem was rectified. It has been further stated that as and when the complaint was received from the complainant and the same was rectified as soon as possible. Lastly, prayed that the complainant has concocted a story to get his Air conditioner replaced with a new one and to grab the money from the opposite parties illegally. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   To prove his contentions OP No.2 filed affidavit of Joginder Singh, Authorized Signatory of Videocon and job cards Annexures R-2/1 to R-2/3.

11.                   It is admitted fact that the Air Conditioner was not working properly from its purchase which shows the first complaint was made by the complainant on 14.5.2012 and further also the Air Conditioner of the complainant remained defective and various complaints were lodged by the complainant in this regard. It means, that the complainant has faced problem to get it rectified from the opposite parties. The complainant has made complaints regarding defects of the Air Conditioner within warranty period to the opposite party No.2 as is admitted by them in their written statement and they could not rectify the defect of the air conditioner as per satisfaction of the complainant which is admittedly deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the air conditioner of the complainant was within warranty period and thus having no alternative, the complainant has to file the present complaint before this Forum for the Redressal of his grievances.

12.                   From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that the OPs have come with the plea that complainant has not pinpoint specific defect in the Air Conditioner but the plea is not sustainable because the main purpose of the product such like Air Conditioner is to provide cooling and when it stopped cooling then the very purpose of the product is defeated. The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, Air Conditioner has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting the consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly  customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duly bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer. Only consumer, when he buys a new product, he is under the impression that the same is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new product would be defect free. A new product could be defective as well. It could be that some errors are in significant but there are, may be many others, which substantially impair use of the product. If the product is defective, a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of the defects or its cause or source. The warranty which is given for a product is for whole of the product and when it is found that the product does not perform properly, the warranty would be taken to have been breached, even if no individual part could be identified as defective.  The Consumer Forum has, however, to take into consideration consumer state of mind as well. After all complainant had invested in the new product to buy peace of mind hopping that the same is dependable and trouble free.

13.                   In this complaint also complainant has suffered lot of problem on various dates as the same has been admitted by the OPs in their written statement. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. So, in the interest of justice, we direct the OP No.2 to replace the Air Conditioner in question with new one of the same model and cost subject to deposit the old Air Conditioner with the OP No.2. If OP No.2 is not in a position to replace the Air Conditioner then OP No.2 is directed to refund the sale price of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs. 22,500/-  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of decision otherwise complainant is at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the opposite party No.2 as per law. The complaint is partly allowed in above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 29.7.2015.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER