BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.299 of 2018
Date of Institution: 06.12.2018
Date of Decision : 24.05.2019
Manish Bansal son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of Gali Boarding Wali, Rori Bazaar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Jagdambey Electro Shop No.38, Ajay Vihar, Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2. Trane, 11th Floor, Tower A, Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Gali No.1, Sector 24, Gurugram.
3. RFD (Service Centre) Gali Telianwali Ekta Chowk, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Yogesh Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sushil Saharan, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 3.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 19.4.2018 complainant had purchased one Trane air conditioner from opposite party no.1 vide bill No. JE/18-19/016 for an amount of Rs.36,000/-. That after sometime of purchase of the said AC, it stopped working properly and it came to the notice of complainant that cooling system of said air conditioner is of poor quality. The complainant contacted the op no.1 in this regard and some mechanics of the company came and after making minor checking took Rs.1000/- from the complainant as service charges but inspite of the same, there was no improvement in the cooling system of the air conditioner. That thereafter the complainant again visited the office of the ops and requested to check and remove the defect of the said AC, but of no effect and the air conditioner is not working properly within guarantee/ warrantee period but the ops are not at all ready to repair or replace the same with new one. The complainant approached the ops and requested them to replace the same with new one or in the alternative to refund the amount of the price of the air conditioner and also got served a legal notice upon the ops, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that in case the terms and conditions of the warrantee policy is violated, then the warrantee policy shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the customer. It is further submitted that complainant got installed the above said AC by his own local technician without discussing the location of installation with the answering op. When the complainant complained about the issue in the above said AC, the technician of the answering op visited the complainant’s place on 12.6.2018 and checked the AC. Upon inspection, he found that the indoor unit of the AC was jammed due to which there was water leakage. The technician then cleaned the pump/ condenser of the AC and advised the complainant to remove the unit from the open area and relocate/ reinstall the AC on proper place to improve the cooling effect as the current location is not good. But the complainant was not ready to understand the same, which is negligence on part of complainant. It is further submitted that answering op had never charged any fee for the service provided to the complainant upon his complaint. The complainant again lodged another complaint upon which the technician of answering op visited the complainant’s place for two days but could not inspect the AC due to non availability of the keys of the installation location and on third day, the above said AC was inspected and on inspection, pump/ condenser was found jammed and due to which there was water leakage. The technician of answering op advised the complainant to relocate the AC as it is right above the main door of the shop and the pump/ condenser of the air conditioner will get jammed due to dust on the main road right in front of the shop and the door is being frequently opened, therefore, there will be less cooling but the complainant remained adamant that he will not change the location. With these averments, dismissal of complained prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 suffered a statement that no separate written statement on behalf of op no.3 is to be filed.
5. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement also resisted the complaint on similar lines as that of op no.1.
6. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops have furnished affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and affidavit Ex.R5. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased air conditioner for Rs.36,000/- from op no.1 with warrantee. As per allegations of complainant, air conditioner of the complainant is not working properly and is not giving cooling as required. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the ops that complainant had got installed his air conditioner in front of the gate of his premises where temperature remains high and non installation of the AC on proper place is reason for less cooling, otherwise there is no defect in the air conditioner. Though complainant has sought replacement of the air conditioner with new one but it is settled principle of law that in order to get any replacement of the product, there should be some manufacturing defect in the product. Since complainant has not placed on record any evidence of any expert qua any manufacturing defect in the air conditioner, as such complainant does not deserve to be entitled for replacement of the air conditioner. It is legal obligation of the dealer and manufacturer to provide after sale services to the customer like complainant since there is complaint of the complainant that air conditioner is not giving proper cooling. As such it is legal obligation of the ops to inspect and verify site and also to carry out necessary repair in the AC if so required and to make same defect free in order to get proper cooling in the premises of complainant.
9. In view of above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to inspect the site and to carry out necessary repair in the AC and to make same defect free in order to get proper cooling in the premises of complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and further directed to change the place of installation at their costs in case same is so required with the consent of complainant. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant including litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 24.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
