DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 232/2014
Date of Institution : 03.11.2014
Date of Decision : 27.04.2015
In the matter of:
Abhishek Kumar Modi s/o Sh. Hemant Kumar resident of H. No. 256, Aastha Enclave, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Jai Luxmi Electronics, Near FCI Godown, Street No. 6-B, Anaj Mandi Road, Barnala through its partner/prop.
2. M/s Llyod Electronics & Engineering Ltd., Plot No. 2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. RK Singla Advocate
For opposite party No. 1 : Smt. Anu Sharma Advocate
For opposite party No. 2 : Sh. JR Garg Advocate
ORDER: BY SH. SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Abhishek Kumar Modi complainant (hereinafter referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein referred as to OPs for short), on the ground that, CC approached the OP-1 for the purchase of one Air Conditioner, who told that, he is the authorized dealer of OP-2 for Llyod Air Conditioner, which is the best Air Conditioner in India. OP-1 further told that, this Air Conditioner bears one year total warranty and 5 years warranty of cooling and compressor and OPs provide best services to their consumers.
It is submitted that, on the assurance of OP-1, CC purchased one Llyod Window Air Conditioner of 1.00 Ton vide bill No. 648 dated 20.5.2013 and paid a sum of Rs. 25,100/- in cash to the OP-1, but he did not issue any warranty/guarantee card to the CC. Even the Air Conditioner was also installed by the mechanics of the OP-1.
It is further submitted that, soon after the purchase of Air Conditioner it developed some defect of not cooling. CC lodged a complaint with the OP-1, who tried its best to rectify the defect but not succeed. In the meantime winter season started and OP-1 assured the CC that, in the start of coming summer season they will put the Air Conditioner of the CC in OK condition.
It is further submitted that, in the month of April 2014 the mechanics of OPs visited the premises of CC and did complete service of Air Conditioner but after few days Air Conditioner again started giving some problem. CC again visited the OP-1 for the removal of the defect in the Air Conditioner and mechanics of OP-1 visited the premises of CC twice in the month of April and May but could not remove the defect.
It is further submitted that, OP-1 told the CC that, during checking of Air Conditioner mechanics of OPs found that, the Air Conditioner is having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified. Thereafter, CC lodged a complaint with OP-2 and engineers of OP-2 alongwith mechanics of OP-1 visited the premises of CC in the month of June 2014 and tried their best to remove the defect in Air Conditioner but failed and ultimately told the CC that, due to some manufacturing defect the compressor of the Air Conditioner is not working properly. They further told that, the whole of the cooling system and compressor of the Air Conditioner will be replaced within 15 days but thereafter they never turned up. After that, CC approached the OPs many times to remove the defect in the Air Conditioner, but they avoided the CC and ultimately refused to do anything to remove the problem.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, CC has sought the following reliefs against the OPs.-
1) OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 25,100/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of purchase i.e. 20.5.2013 till realization.
2) OPs be further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
Complaint of the CC is signed and verified. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, OP-1 has opposed the complaint of the CC by taking legal objections on the ground that, CC has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. Further, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
On merits, it is submitted by the OP-1 that, CC purchased the Split Llyod Air Conditioner from the OP-1 of 1.00 Ton on 20.5.2013. It is further submitted that, Llyod air Conditioner bears the warranty of one year and sixty months warranty on the compressor. The Air Conditioner was packed in the box of Llyod company containing warranty card and user manual, which was opened in the house of the CC before installation.
It is admitted that, in July 2013 CC approached the answering OP for some problem in Air Conditioner and OP-1 told the CC that, as the Air Conditioner is within warranty period, he should lodge his complaint at toll free number given in the user manual and with the service centre of the company and they remove the defect in the Air Conditioner. It is denied if mechanics of OP-1 visited twice the premises of CC in the month of April and May and OP-1 ever told the CC that, Air Conditioner has some manufacturing defect, which could not be removed and gave assurance of replacement of Air Conditioner.
It is further submitted that, warranty was given by the Llyod Company and dealer is not liable to repair or replace the Air Conditioner.
Thus alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The version of OP-1 is signed and verified.
In reply, OP-2 has opposed the complaint of the CC by taking similar legal objections as taken by the OP-1.
On merits, it is admitted that, OP-2 gave warranty of one year of Air Conditioner and sixty months warranty of the compressor. It is submitted that, CC has purchased one Split Llyod Air Conditioner of 1.00 Ton.
It is further submitted that, on 15.7.2013 service centre of OP-2 received a call from the CC and Sanjeev Kumar mechanic of OP-2 visited the premises of CC and found that drain pipe which opened in the street was blocked by placing marble slabs in front of its opening, so the Air Conditioner was not working properly. The mechanic of OP-2 removed the defect and CC being satisfied signed the job card.
It is further submitted that, again on 1.5.2014 service centre of OP-2 received a call from CC and Sanjeev Kumar mechanic visited the premises of CC and found that the flare nut on the outer joint was loose and gas has leaked out, so the gas was refilled and CC being satisfied signed the job card. Thereafter, again on 12.8.2014 a call was received by the service centre of OP-2 and Sanjeev Kumar again visited the premises of CC and found that, in the discharge piper there was formation of ice, which indicates gas leakage and same did not indicate any defect in the compressor. CC was informed that, warranty period has already been expired and he would pay for the service. At this, CC told that, he did not want to repair the Air Conditioner and would file a case against the company and dealer. Even, the mechanic was not allowed to inspect the Air Conditioner system to locate the point of gas leakage. But the CC has concealed all these facts from this Forum. It is denied if CC was told that, due to manufacturing defect the cooling system and compressor of Air Conditioner is not working and both will be replaced within 15 days.
Thus alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The version of OP-2 is signed and verified.
3. CC in support of his claim, has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of the CC, OP-1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.OP-1/1 and closed its evidence. Further, OP-2 tendered in evidence copies of job cards Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/3, copy of cover page of user manual Ex.OP-2/4, affidavit of Jasbeer Kumar Ex.OP-2/5, affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.OP-2/6 and closed its evidence.
5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, versions filed by the OPs-1 and 2 and evidence of parties and also heard counsel for the parties at length.
6. It is an admitted fact that, CC had purchased an Air Conditioner in question from the OP-1, which is manufactured by OP-2, but it is strongly and vehemently denied if OP-1 sold any Llyod Window Air Conditioner to the CC and only a Llyod Split Air Conditioner was sold to him. CC in his complaint himself specifically mentioned that, he purchased a Llyod Window Air Conditioner from the OP-1 and even in his affidavit which he exhibited in his evidence mentioned the same fact. The OPs raised the above mentioned objection in their versions, even then CC cannot rebut this fact by way of any documentary evidence or moved any application to amend the complaint to remove this major discrepancy in his claim and only at the time of arguments this fact brought to the notice of this Forum by Advocate for the CC, which goes against the CC, as it is the basic point involved in this case.
It is admitted by the OPs that, Air Conditioner in question is having the warranty of one year and sixty months warranty on the compressor from the date of purchase. It is proved by the OPs vide Ex.OP-2/1 and Ex.OP-2/2 that, the mechanics of OPs twice visited the premises of the CC and repaired the Air Conditioner of the CC on his call free of costs, as at that time Air Conditioner in question was within the warranty period. Even, Ex.OP-2/2 bears the signatures of the CC, which further proved that, he satisfied from the service of the OPs. It is also proved by the OPs vide Ex.OP-2/3 that, the mechanics of the OPs even visited the premises of the CC on 12.8.2014 and checked the Air Conditioner of the CC and also offered the CC to repair the Air Conditioner on payment as the warranty of the Air Conditioner has already been expired, but CC refused to give any payment, so the Air Conditioner of the CC has not been repaired. It is proved from Ex.C-2 that, CC purchased the Air Conditioner on 20.5.2013, so naturally the warranty period has been expired on 19.5.2014 and thereafter all companies gives service only on payment basis. In our view, on this point there is no fault on the part of the OPs. Further, CC also concealed all these facts from this Forum despite of his signatures on Ex.OP-2/2.
Further, CC has taken specific plea in his complaint that, his Air Conditioner is having some manufacturing defect, which plea has been strongly denied by the OPs. Even, CC himself also failed to prove this plea by way of any documentary or expert evidence. He has not submitted any affidavit of any expert in this field which could say that, the Air Conditioner is having some manufacturing defect. As the Air Conditioner is installed in the premises of the CC in his possession, so he can easily got checked the same from some expert in this profession to prove his specific plea of manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner, but he failed to prove this plea on the file, which goes to the root of the case. Even, CC also failed to prove if OPs ever pressurized him to purchase Llyod Air Conditioner as mentioned by him in his complaint.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, CC is not able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the CC is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, no order as to cost or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
27th Day of April 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
