BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.351 of 2014

Date of Instt. 13.10.2014

Date of Decision :06.04.2015

Avtar Singh son of Channan Singh R/o village Lutera Kalan, PO Kalra District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Jatindra Electricals, Railway Road, Adampur Doaba, District Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Owner.

2. Whirlpool of India Ltd, Consumer Cell, 28, NIT, Faridabad-121001 (Haryana) through its Director Head, Second Address:- SCO 910, N.A.C.Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Balraj Sharma Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Opposite party No.1 in person.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased a split Air Conditioner 1.2 Ton, 5 Star Rating make Whirlpool Model 1.2 T Magicool in unit No.131002251 out unit No.1320502478 for Rs.33500/- from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.260 dated 16.7.2014. Opposite party No.1 at the time of the purchase of the said AC assured to complainant with regard to the quality and good performance of the above said AC. Complainant came under the above said assurance of the opposite party No.1 and purchased the above said AC for his personal use, from opposite party No.1 after full assurance about the quality, performance and guarantee of the above said AC. From the very beginning the said AC was not in a working order and it was not cooling the room of the complainant. The complainant made his first complaint to the opposite parties within few days and the persons sent by opposite parties failed to cure/repair and said defect of the above said AC and after that complaint made number of complaints to this effect to the opposite party No.1 to cure/remove the said defect but proved futile. The record of the said complaints made by complainant is duly registered/incorporated in the record of opposite party No.2. Complainant got inspected/checked the the said AC from the experts and they told to the complainant that the said AC units (indoor and outside units) is having manufacturing defect and is not repairable. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the split AC in question alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that it is correct that they have sold a split Air Conditioner 1.2 Tons, Five Star rating make Whirlpool model 1.2 tons Magicool vide its invoice No.260 dated 16.7.2014 to complainant. However it denied that there is manufacturing defect in it and it is not repairable. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2 pleaded that the complainant has not filed any document to show that the AC is not working properly. In fact the complainant has got installed 1.2 Ton AC for commercial purpose. There can be many reasons for lesser cooling other than the defect alleged by the complainant. As AC has been installed in workshop, there can be very frequent opening and closing of the door. Moreover, the cooling depends upon the area and design of the shop/workshop, number of persons working in the workshop. It is further submitted that whenever any complaint was received by the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.2, it was duly attended. However, time and again minor adjustments regarding the proper usage were made. The obligation of the opposite party No.2 is to set the AC right under the terms and conditions of the warranty to which opposite party No.2 still stands. Rather it is complainant who is not agreeing to terms of warranty to which he had given consent at the time of purchase of AC. The opposite party No.2 on the request as well as for satisfaction of the complainant agreed to replace the machine but to utter surprise of the opposite party No.2 when the new AC was offered complainant took U turn and refused to take delivery of the new AC. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA & Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/7 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased Whirlpool Split AC in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 16.7.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.33,500/-. According to complainant, soon after purchase the AC failed to cool the room of the complainant and he made number of complaints to opposite party No.1 but the same proved futile. Further according to complainant, there is manufacturing defect in it. The opposite party No.2 in its written reply has pleaded that the complainant has purchased the split AC in question for commercial purpose as same is installed in a workshop. There is no reliable evidence on record to this effect from the side of the opposite parties. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 has admitted that complainant purchased the unit for his personal use from it. The complainant has produced the copy of letter Ex.C6 sent by opposite party No.2 wherein it is mentioned that they have already processed his case for replacement of outdoor unit of AC after taking necessary approvals from the concerned his AC's outdoor unit's replacement number is 1600005476 which will be delivered to him within a weeks time. The opposite parties have also produced the same letter which is Ex.OP2/1. The opposite parties have further placed on record letter 20.10.2014 Ex.OP2/2 wherein it is mentioned that this is to inform that they have already processed the replacement of his AC (both units indoor and outdoor) vide ARA No.160005476 and same was dispatched to him i.e complainant on 23.9.2014 but he refused to take the delivery of the new units. Vide this letter, opposite party No.2 again requested the complainant to take the delivery of the AC (both units) and requested him to contact the undersigned for the same. So opposite party No.2 is ready to replace the AC (both in door and outdoor units) as is evident from the above said letter. The opposite party No.1 has also placed on record service job sheet Ex.OP1/5 wherein it is mentioned that appliance to be replaced. Since opposite parties have offered to replace the AC of the complainant, it clearly suggest that same is having some manufacturing defect and is not repairable.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the AC of the complainant with new one of the same make and model after receiving old AC from him. The opposite party No.2 shall also install the new AC in the premises of the complainant free of cost. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000 in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

06.04.2015 Member Member President