BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.404 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 06.12.2021

      Date of Decision: 21.11.2024

Vishal Verma (aged about 31 yeas) son of Sh. Jang Bahadar resident of House No. N.A.214, Street No.6, Kishanpura, Industrial Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Havells India Ltd. Corporate Office:QRG Towers, 2D,      Sector-126, Expressway, Noida-201301, U. P. India, through its Managing Director (manufacturer of product)

2.       M/s Kalra Refrigeration & Electricals situated at # 15, Sanjay   Gandhi Market, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar-144001, through its        proprietor/partner (seller of product)

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. A. K. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                 The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased an AC from OP No.2 vide retain invoice No.T/20-21/578 dated 14.09.2020 for Rs.24,300/- and made the payment partly in cash and balance through finance from IDFC First. The AC was manufactured by OP No.1 and was sold under the brand name of Lloyd. At the time of purchasing , the complainant was assured that the AC was having a warranty against all manufacturing defects up to one year from the date of its purchase with specific warranty of 10 years of condenser. After installation of the AC, the complainant realized that it produces horrible voices and vibrations caused great deal of nuisance for complainant and also for neighbours. The complainant enquired the reason thereof from the OPs staff who installed the AC, but they expressed their inability to comment anything on the issue as it’s a technical issue and can be fixed by technician only. Soon thereafter the complainant realized the cooling of the AC was not effective and the other problems of producing high voices and vibration became intolerable. So, complainant had to lodge complaint with the OP. After 2-3 days one technician from OP visited the complainant and after checking apprised the complainant that the said problems occurred on account of some technical defect in the compressor of the AC and the same needs to be replaced. Though at that time, the technician made some temporary arrangement to set the AC in order with assurance that the defective part i.e. compressor will be replaced as and when received from the company and regarding this he has lodged the request with the company. Despite persistent requests and follow ups, the OPs neither replaced the defective part/compressor as per their assurance nor repaired the AC and kept lingering on the matter on one pretext to another, whereby the complainant was restrained to utilize the fruits of the AC despite spending the huge amount to the tune of Rs.24,300/- as cost of the product and Rs.1000/- as installation charges. The complainant was issued a legal notice upon the OP, but all in vain 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 of Rs.24,300/- i.e. the entire cost of AC alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment against the OPs. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts. It is further averred that the answering OP is always ready and willing to check the AC of the complainant and if any issue is found subject to warranty terms. It is further averred that the complainant has failed to disclose all the facts before this Commission. It is further averred that as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the product manufacturer or service provider will only be liable if there is any manufacturing defect in the product or defective design of the product. There is a deviation from manufacturing specifications or the product does not conform to the express warranty or the product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any harm or any warning regarding improper or incorrect usage or service provided is faulty, inadequate and deficient. The complainant has failed to prove any such thing in the present case. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the AC from OP No.2, 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 have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the complainant has purchased the AC from the OP No.2, vide Ex.C-1 for Rs.24,300/-. The complainant has alleged that the complainant was assured that AC was having a warranty against all the manufacturing defects upto one year with specific warranty of ten years of condenser. After the installation, the AC started producing horrible voices and when he contacted the OPs and lodged the complaint, they had visited the house and inspected the AC. He was informed that there was some technical defect in the compressor of the AC and that needs to be replaced. It has been alleged that he has been making request and approaching the OP number of times for replacing the condenser, but his grievance has not been resolved. The OP has denied that the complainant has ever approached the OP or ever made any complaint with the OP. It has been alleged that the technician of the OP never visited the house of the complainant for the inspection of the AC nor has ever told the complainant that the AC is having some technical defect.

7.                It is well settled law that the complainant/plaintiff is to stand on his own legs and it is the complainant who is to prove his case. The complainant has proved on record the bill of purchasing the AC, Ex.C-1, which has not been denied by the OP. The complainant has alleged that he made number of complaints to the OP, but no copy of the complaint has been filed on record. There is no email on the record to show that he has ever emailed to the OP. There is no job card of the OP to prove that any technician ever visited the house of the complainant for the inspection of the AC. There is no expert opinion to show that the AC was having some technical defect as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not produced on record any warranty as alleged by the complainant nor it has been proved that he was given the warranty of 10 years for compressor as alleged by the complainant. The terms and conditions of the warranty of Lloyd services have been proved by the OP as Ex.OP1/1. Perusal of Ex.OP1/1 nowhere shows that this window AC was having 10 years of warranty of compressor as alleged by the complainant nor it has been mentioned in the invoice that there is an additional warranty for 10 years as alleged by the complainant. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service by the OPs and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

21.11.2024         Member                          Member               President