DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.400/2011

Sh. M. Anas Abbasi

Proprietor of M/s Tablighi Kitabghar,

Shop No.3, Nizamuddin West,

Near Karim Hotel, New Delhi

….Complainant

Versus

M/s Jeevanjee Regrigeration Engineers

Through its Authorized Person

LG Best Shop, K-40,

Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi- 110024

M/s L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Managing Director/Authorized Person

Having its Regd. Office at:

Plot No.-51, Kasna Road,

Greater Noida- 201306

        ….Opposite Parties

 Date of Institution    :     21.10.2011    

 Date of Order            :    27.06.2022  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant requesting for replacement of air conditioner or returning the cost of Rs.18,500/- along with the sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards harassment and mental agony.

It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one air conditioner model 3 NW 2VFI- LSA, one ton split air conditioner vide invoice No. 11397/2009-10 from OP No.1 i.e M/s Jeevanjee Refrigeration Engineers on 21.04.09. The manufacturer of the AC is OP No. 2 i.e  LG Electronics (P) Ltd. It is the case of the complainant that the said AC came with a warranty of one year however after the installation of the air conditioner the same thing was not functioning properly and was giving trouble as it had a problem of air break up and there was no proper cooling.

It is stated that this was brought to the notice of customer care center of OP No. 2 vide complaints No. N9C 62614138, N9C 51511586, N9C 72307578, N9C 81008622 and No. C09B1807500 on different dates ranging from 25.05.09 till 13.08.09. It is stated that though the engineer from the authorised service center of OP No. 2 visited the place that is the shop of the complainant where the said air conditioner was installed however he was unable to remove that effect. It is alleged by the complainant that he contacted the branch manager as well as the area in charge who also visited the shop of the complainant but after inspection of the air conditioner they showed their inability to remove the defect on the ground that there is some manufacturing defect. It is the complaint of the complainant that though he had approached the authorised service center of OP No. 2 as well as OP No. 1 time and again with request to replace the air conditioner but they have failed to respond properly and it is stated that in case the air conditioner is not repairable because of manufacturing defect then the same should be replaced. It is stated that this act of the OPs speak of the negligence as well as deficiency on their part therefore the OPs are liable to replace the air conditioner as well as compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-.

On the other hand the OP has raised preliminary objection that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed for the purpose of harassing and pressurising the OP to submit to the unreasonable demand of the complainant. Preliminary objection has also been taken by the OP that the present complaint is barred by time as the complaint has been filed after more than 2 years from the alleged cause of action that is 13.08.2009. It is stated by the OP that the complainant has enjoyed the air conditioner for more than two and a half years from the date of purchase and the complaint has been filed only as an afterthought to extract benefits out of OP. It is also stated that the objective of the complainant is to cause loss of goodwill and credibility of the OPs.

On merits, it is stated that the air conditioner was working properly, the job sheets filed by the complainant are denied by the OP stating that these are old and the complainant has not placed any record of the job sheets to verify the cause/nature of the complaint. It is however stated by the OP that prompt service was rendered to the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is submitted that without prejudice, the AC installed at the store of the complainant is near to drain(big nala) and therefore emergence of sulphur oxide gas causes chemical reaction with copper resulting in damage of the copper wire of A/c thereby causing loss of gas. It is stated by the OP that this problem has nothing to do with them. It is further stated that as per the warranty the OP is legally bound to repair the air conditioner but since there is no defect in the air conditioner, the OP is not bound to repair or replace it. It has been further stated that as there is no defect in the said air conditioner the OP is not bound to compensate the complainant as there has been no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP.

 This commission has carefully gone through the complaint and it is seen that the complaint was filed on 21.10.2011, whereas last complaint was made on 13.08.2009 by the Complainant It is also noticed that the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay to explain the delay in filing the present complaint. Since none of the job sheets have been placed on record, it is difficult to conclude that the limitation for filing the case could have been extended from that date, therefore this Commission is of the view that the present complaint is barred by time.

OP No.1 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.09.2002.

Even otherwise, the complainant has not annexed any documents to prove his case. The complainant has levelled the allegation of manufacturing defect but has not been able to make any effort to prove the same. Similarly, the complainant has stated that various complaints were made by him however he has not placed on record any proof of these complaints, neither emails nor any other proof. In the given circumstances, it is quite possible that the explanation given by the OP in their reply be correct that in case an AC is installed near the drain, the sulphur oxide that emanates from the drain may may have an adverse effect on the copper wires of the AC.

We do not find any merit in the present complaint and therefore the same is dismissed without any costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.