M/s Gurjot Enterprises V/S Shiv Dutt Sharma - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/30

Shiv Dutt Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gurjot Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mukesh Arora

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/30 of 27.1.2015

Decided on: 8.7.2015

Sh.Shiv Dutt Sharma, resident of H.No.418, New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala, 147001, Mob. No.99154-10020.

…………...Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Gurjot Enterprises, S.C.F.32,SST Nagar, Patiala

2. Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited 2^nd Floor, Tower A&B,DLF Cyber Greens, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana,India.

…………….Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh.D.R.Arora, President

Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant: Complainant with Counsel

Sh.Mukesh Arora , Advocate

For Op No.1 Sh.Pal Singh, Prop.

For Op No.2: Sh.Ankush Saluja, Branch Manager/authorized

representative

ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased one 1.5 ton cassette AC(Model SL-2AKLD) from Op no.1, an authorized dealer of Op no.2 on 31.12.2012 for Rs.60,000/-. After the installation of the AC in the month of February,2013, the same had failed to work despite the best efforts made by Op no.1, as was admitted by Op no.1 in the reply filed by the Op in the earlier complaint.
The complainant had made complaints on different dates to the Ops and the same were attended to on 26.4.2013,3.6.2013 and 4.7.2013 but the ops failed to rectify the defect in the AC. The complainant had also written the letters to the Ops on 21.10.2013 and 19.11.2013 for the replacement of the AC, which was defective from the day of its installation but the requests of the complainant had fallen on deaf ears as would appear from the replies dated 21.10.2013 and 2.12.2013 sent by the Ops. Being dissatisfied with the services provided by the Ops, the complainant had brought a complaint before this Forum, which was dismissed vide order dated 1.7.2014.
It is further averred by the complainant that he had requested Op no.1 for first service but it refused to do so. The complainant had to call an engineer from outside for servicing the AC who found the PCB and fan motor to be repaired ones and told the complainant that the said parts could only be supplied by the manufacturing company. It is alleged that the PCB and fan motor are the same which were replaced by the engineer of the company during the warranty period so as to rectify the defect complained of by the complainant after the installation of the AC. On 11.9.2014, the complainant contacted Op no.2 through e-mail and brought to its notice regarding the replacement of the repaired spare parts instead of new ones during the warranty period and as a result of which the AC stopped working and requested to get the AC set right. On 12.9.2014 Sh.Gati Krushna Mishra, Sr.Engineer, Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt.Limited, informed the complainant regarding the expiry of the warranty period and asked the complainant to contact Op no.1.
The complainant contacted Op no.1, whose mechanic visited the site and checked the AC and found the motor to be faulty as per FSR No.1366 dated 15.9.2014.On 19.9.2014, Op no.2, asked the complainant to pay 100% advance amount of Rs.24350/- for the replacement of three parts besides paying Rs.5000/- towards labour charges telephonically. To the contrary, the mechanic of Op no.1, in his Filed Failure Cum Service Report described only one part i.e. the motor to be defective. The said discrepancy i.e. the defect in one and three defective parts qua their estimate was brought to the notice Op no.2 by the complainant on 1.10.2014 and the complainant raised the question about the mentioning of two other parts, which were not found to be defective by the mechanic of Op no.1. Op no.2 never visited the site and the communication was made through e-mail and telephonically. The complainant had brought to the notice of Op no.2 the defective working of the AC and also raised his apprehension about the prejudicial working of the service engineer but Op no.2 justified its estimate and failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the replacement of two other spare parts.
It is further averred by the complainant that the parts which were replaced earlier were also repaired ones but the Ops tried to justify the quality of its product.
It is further averred by the complainant that no service was provided by the Ops during the pendency of the earlier complaint, which remained pending for a period of one year. Now the Ops were trying to exploit the position of the complainant on the ground that his complaint has already been dismissed and he is being penalized /harassed and on that count as would appear from the contradictory estimates made by Op no.2 and defects pointed out by the engineer of Op no.1.
The claim of Op no.2 regarding its product being world class had fallen flat in as much as admittedly three parts have gone defective within a span of less than two years ,out of which one year was spent in getting the defective parts rectified and the second year had passed on the part of the ops claiming the working of their product during the pendency of the previous complaint. A lady luck has favoured the Ops in as much as the AC had become totally a failure after the dismissal of the previous complaint and that is why the Ops show their high-handedness. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to replace the AC which is defective from the very beginning as the same was having the defective parts. The Ops may also be obliged to pay the compensation on account of the mental agony experienced by the complainant and be burdened with costs.
On notice, the Ops appeared but only Op no.2 filed its written version while Op no.1 submitted in writing that the reply filed by Op no.2 is true and correct and the same may be read as reply on its behalf.
In the written version filed by Op no.2, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased 1.5 ton split AC(Model SL 2AKLD) on 31.12.2012 from Op no., the authorized dealer of Op no.2. Op no.2 had received the complaints from the complainant, in respect of which the service engineer of Op no.2 attended the complaint on 26^th April,2014 and replaced the defective parts (PCB motor) in consonance with the terms of the warranty. The service engineer of Op no.2 had attended the complaints regarding the low cooling vide service report dated 3.6.2013.The service engineer of Op no.2 had not found any defect in the AC as the system was absolutely in perfect mode but the complainant persisted in the replacement of AC, which request of him was denied as the cooling of the AC was indeed good. The service engineer of Op no.2 found the problem due to the gas shortage and he had charged the gas and rendered the machine perfectively in working condition.
It is averred by the Ops that as per the norms of Op no.2, two services are provided within a period of one year from the date of purchase/installation, which had already been provided vide service reports dated 26.4.2013,3.62013 and 4.72013 .In the previous complaint No.CC/14/48 of 2014, the complainant failed to mention about the refusal of service by Op no.2 and with regard to the complainant having called the engineer from outside for getting the AC serviced and that the engineer found the PCB and fan motor to be repaired ones during the first service. The service engineer of Op no.2 had visited the site of the complainant on 26.4.2014 to make good the defect found in the AC and who found some fault in the PCB and as per warranty terms, new PCB had been replaced.
It is further averred by the Op that the liability of the Op is limited for a period of one year as per the terms of the warranty and in consonance thereof the company is liable to change/repair the faulty parts but is not liable to replace the machine with new one. Replacement is done when the machine is not repairable or after changing the parts the same remain defective. It is admitted by the Op that it has received the mail from the complainant on 11.9.2014 regarding the non functioning of the unit and on 12.9.2014 the service engineers of Op no.2 advised the complainant about the terms of the warranty, the same having expired and that the rectification shall be carried out on chargeable basis. The service engineers visited the site of the complainant on 19^th September,2014 and found two PCBs and one IDV FM of the AC already having been tampered with by some unauthorized outside agency thereby rendering all the components to be defective. The Op had already received text message from the complainant on 19^th September,2014 asking for the quotations regarding the spare parts to be replaced. There is no discrepancy of opinion between the mechanic of Op no.1 and the service engineer of Op no.2 with regard to number of defective parts to be replaced. Failed service report (FSR) dated 15.9.2014 , on the basis of which the mechanic of Op no.1 had made the recommendation inadvertently foregot to mention the details of other defective parts that were required to be replaced in FSR. However, the reports sent by the mechanic without any doubt go to explain the replacement of three defective parts i.e. two PCBs -1 IDV-FM and on that count the Op no.2 has not to take any undue advantage. Op no.2 vide the mail dated 21.10.2014 sent to the complainant clarified the position about the replacement of three defective parts for which the complainant had to pay 100% advance as per the policy of the company. Op no.2 never claimed any visiting charges in advance from the complainant regarding unit which is out of warranty. Op no.2 rebutted the allegations of the complainant that it had replaced the repaired parts on 26^th April,2013.Lastly it is submitted by the Op that the complainant is looking for the replacement of the AC by hook or crook by making irrelevant statements. After denouncing the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and his counsel closed the evidence.
On the other hand, on behalf of Op no.2, Sh.Ankush Saluja, Branch Manager (Channel sales) tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence of Op no.2.
Sh.Pal Singh, Prop. of Op no.1 suffered the statement that he does not want to lead any evidence and the evidence tendered by Op no.2 may be read on his behalf.
The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant , the representatives of the ops and gone through the evidence on record.
The complainant has come forward with the plea that he had asked Op no.1 for first service but it refused to provide the same. Then he called an engineer from outside for service of the AC, who found the PCB and fan motor to be repaired one and told the complainant that these parts could be supplied by the manufacturing company only. The PCB and fan motor are the same, which were replaced by the company engineer during the warranty period. Then, it is the case of the complainant that he had contacted Op no.2 through e-mail and brought to its notice regarding the replacement of the repaired parts instead of new ones. On 12.9.2014 Sh.Gati Mishra, Sr.Engineer Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt. Ltd. informed the complainant regarding the expiry of the warranty and asked to contact Op no.1 for rectification. Then he contacted Op no.1, whose mechanic visited the site and got the AC checked and found motor to be faulty as per FSR No.1366 dated 15.9.2014. On 19.9.2014, Op no.2 asked for 100% advance payment of Rs.24350/- for the replacement of three spare parts besides the payment of Rs.5000/- towards labour charges. Op no.1 in its filed failure cum service report described only one part i.e. motor only.
The complainant has tried to show that the PCB and fan motor already replaced by Op no.2 on 20.4.2013 vide service report Ex.C3 were repaired ones. In this regard, it is alleged by the complainant that he had called an outside engineer, who disclosed that PCB and fan motor were already repaired onesThe complainant has not produced any report to have been obtained from an outside engineer. Even the identity of the said engineer has not been disclosed i.e. to which firm/company the engineer belonged and on which date and month he was called, in the absence of which, it would appear that the complainant has come forward with a plea manipulated by him.
It was submitted by Sh.Mukesh Arora, the learned counsel for the complainant that whereas the engineer deputed by Op no.1 vide his Filed Failure-cum-Service Report,ExC9 dated 15.9.2014 found the motor to be faulty, Op no.2 in response to the e-mail Ex.C7 dated 11.9.2014, sent by the complainant through his e-mail ID

SL No	PART CODE
		INDOOR CONTROLLER BOARD
		INDOOR POWER BOARD
		INDOOR FAN MOTOR


		GRAND TOTAL

Thus, it was submitted by Sh.Mukesh Arora, the learned counsel for the complainant that instead of one part the Ops wanted to replace thee parts, without there being any report obtained from an engineer of the company.
Ex.C8 is the e-mail dated 12.9.2014 sent by Gati Mishra to the complainant with a copy to Ankush Saluja on his e-mail ID
It was submitted by Sh.Ankush Saluja, the authorized representative of Op no.2 that the complainant sent the message (Ex.OP2 ) through his mobile phone asking for the cost of the spares and their availability so that his AC could be repaired and in response to the same Mr.Gati Mishra had sent e-mail, Ex.OP3 dated 19^th September,2014 to the complainant disclosing the parts and the rates thereof.
Here, it may be noted that the complainant has not disclosed in the complaint as to what was the period of the warranty of the product and similarly the Ops have not disclosed about the same. Today, during the course of the arguments, the leaned counsel for the complainant produced the warranty card issued by Op no.2 alongwith product, which could not be produced earlier in evidence by way of inadvertence and he appended his signatures thereon. Sh.Ankush Saluja, Branch Manager/ authorized representative of Op no.2 at Chandigarh, in his statement admitted that the warranty card to have been produced by the counsel for the complainant belongs to op no.2 and that he has got no objection in case the same is made a part of the evidence and he also appended his signatures thereon. Condition No.1 of the warranty terms and conditions provides as under:

“1. Mitsubishi Electric’s obligation under the Warranty shall be limited to repair or providing replacement of parts only and will be carried out through its Authorized Dealer of Service Center. The standard warranty terms are as mentioned below:

Product category		Warranty Period(1+No. of Years extended warranty on compressor only
Room AC(R-22 Fixed Speed)	Upto 3 TR
Cassettes type & ceiling concealed (R-22) Fixed Speed	Upto 2 TR	1+4 Years
Inverter Type RAC(R-410A Variable Speed)		1+2 Years
Other than above(R-22 Fixed speed)