PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                Adumbrated in brief, the facts indispensable for the disposal of the instant complaint, instituted u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are that the Complainant purchased a brand new Voltas Air Conditioner (for brevity ‘A.C.’) 1.5 Ton on 5.4.2009 from OP No.1. Her contention was that the cooling of the A.C. was not proper right from the day one, upon which repeated complaints were lodged with the OPs, but they failed to recitfy the defect in the A.C., on account of which, she had to suffer lot of inconvenience, especially during the months of summer. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]             Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]             OPs in their joint written statement while admitting the factual aspects of the case, pleaded that the room, where the A.C. was installed, is a open hall which further opens into gallery and is connected to kitchen which remains open, thus the cooling was optimum under the given circumstances. It was submitted that whenever the complaints were lodged, the same were duly attended to by the OPs to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record including written arguments..

6]             The main grouse of the complainant is with regard to the cooling of the A.C., which was not proper right from the day one and despite various complaints, the OPs failed to rectify the defect in the A.C. In support of her contentions she has placed on file Annexure now marked C-1, the copy of the retail invoice which shows that the said A.C. was purchased by her on 5.04.2009 from OP-1 for Rs.18,500/-. Annexure now marked C-2 to Annexure C-4 are the copies of the service report of OP-2(service centre of OP-1) vide which her complaints were dully attended by the OPs.

7]             On the other hand the OPs contended that the said A.C. of 1.5 Ton was got installed by the complainant in the room having dimension of 15x12 feet(180 sq. feet), which further opens into gallery and was connected to kitchen which remains open, whereas the recommended dimension for the same was 150 sq. feet only. 

8]             We have gone through the records very carefully and find that as and when the complaints with regard to the said A.C. was reported by the complainant, the same were duly attended by the OPs to the entire satisfaction of the complainant as is clear from the copies of the service report sheets Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-4 bearing the clients signature under the heading Job Carried out to my entire satisfaction.  It is evident from the job card that no major defect was ever reported or detected and only a problem of stabilizer wire short was detected on 6.08.2009 vide Annexure C-4, which however was repaired/rectified and as per the service report, it was made O.K up to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.

9]             The above contention of the OPs that the said A.C. was not got installed by the complainant as per the recommended dimension, has gone unrebutted by the complainant, which clearly shows that there was no cooling problem in the said A.C. The complainant could have filed rejoinder/replication to the reply of the OPs, which she has not. Otherwise also, the complainant has not been able to produce any expert opinion of any authorized electric mechanic/workshop to prove that there was any defect with regard to the cooling in the said A.C. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the oral assertions of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration against the OPs to hold them liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. 

10]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.