Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/108

Satwant Singh Wander - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s L.G Electronic India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Satwant Singh Wander

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      108 of 2019

Date of Institution :  22.04.2019

Date of Decision :    04.02.2020

Satwant Singh Wander Advocate, aged about 62 years, son of Inder Singh r/o House No.409, Street No.7, Partap Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.                                               

.....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s L G Electronics India Pvt Ltd, Industrial Area Phase-2, 157, Dakshan Marg, Chandigarh through its M.D.
2. M/s Electronics Point, Near Raj Mahal, Faridkot through its Proprietor.                                                          ..............OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Gurmeet Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

             Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              OP-2 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to repair or replace the defective Air Conditioner free of costs and for further directing OPs to pay

cc no.108 of 2019

Rs.1,50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased two Air Conditioners from OP-2 for Rs.77,000/-against bill no.498 dated 26.04.2017 and he also paid Rs.1000/-as fitting charges. It is submitted that after 6 months of purchase, said air conditioners stopped working. Complainant reported the mater to OP-2 and on his request OP-2 sent his mechanic, who repaired the same, but after few days,  said air conditioners again started giving trouble. Complainant again made complaint to OP-2, but all in vain. Thereafter, he made complaint to OP-1 but OP-1 also did not pay any heed to hear his genuine requests and did not do anything needful. All this act of OPs has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. He  has prayed for directions OPs to replace the said air conditioners and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                    Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.04.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 

cc no.108 of 2019

4                                  On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed written reply wherein asserted that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. He has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material things from this Forum and has wrongly impleaded OP-1 as party to present complaint. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even no expert report is submitted by complainant. There is no manufacturing defect in said air conditioners and manufacturing company is not liable for repair beyond the terms and conditions of warranty. It is averred that when complainant lodged first complaint in May 2018, at that time said air conditioners were out of warranty period.  Service Engineer of answering OP visited the house of complainant to check the said air conditioners and he found that condenser coil became defective due to its normal wear and tear and needed to be replaced and as warranty period was expired therefore, repair was to be done on chargeable basis. Their Service Engineer gave estimate of repair to complainant, but complainant refused to get repaired the said air conditioners on chargeable basis and then, finding no other alternative, their Service Engineer came back without repair. Complainant has concealed the material fact that products were out of warranty period. There is no inherent defect in said air conditioners and moreover, no expert report is brought on file by complainant. performance of product depends upon physical handling and in present complaint,

cc no.108 of 2019

answering OP is liable only for repair of said air conditioners on chargeable basis  and as per terms and conditions of warranty replacement sought by complainant for said air conditioners is not permissible.  Defect occurred in said air conditioners is due to normal wear and tear and it can be duly rectified but complainant is not willing to get the same repaired on payment of charges. No cause of action arises against answering OP and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                              As per office report, notice issued to OP-2 stand served but despite several calls and long waiting till 4.30 p.m., no body appeared in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel on behalf of OP-2 and then, vide order dated 4.06.2019, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-5 and documents Ex C-1 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Bawa as Ex OP-1/1, document Ex OP-1/2 and thereafter, despite availing sufficient opportunities, he did not conclude his evidence and therefore,

 

cc no.108 of 2019

vide order dated 15.01.2020 of this Forum, evidence of OP-1 was closed by order of this Forum.

8                                                          We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party no.1.

9                                              From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased two Air Conditioners from OP-2 for Rs.77,000/-against proper bill on 26.04.2017, but just after 6 months of purchase, said air conditioners stopped working. He reported the matter to OP-2, who sent his mechanic and said mechanic repaired the same,  but thereafter,  said air conditioners again started giving trouble. He complained regarding this OP-2 but despite several visits and requests made by complainant OPs did not pay any heed to his genuine requests and nothing fruitful was done by them to redress his grievance. On the other hand plea taken by OP-1 is that air conditioners in question were out of warranty period and replacement or free of cost repair is not permissible beyond terms and conditions of warranty period. On complaint by complainant, their Service Engineer inspected the said air conditioners, he found that condenser coil was damaged due to normal wear and tear and it required replacement. As the products were out of warranty period, therefore, he gave estimate for repair of coil to

cc no.108 of 2019

complainant, but complainant himself refused to get repaired the said air conditioners on chargeable basis. There is no inherent manufacturing defect in air conditioners purchased by complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

10                                            To prove his pleadings complainant counsel has placed on record copy of document Ex C-2 i.e copy of bill dated 26.04.2017 that proves the pleadings of complainant that he purchased the air conditioners in question from OP-2 for Rs.77,000/-. It also proves the fact that he paid Rs.1000/- to OP-2 as fitting charges for installation of said air conditioners. Through affidavit ExC-1, complainant has tried to reiterate his grievance and has made request for replacement of air conditioners. Ex C-4 is report given by private mechanic that reveals the fact that coil of condenser was totally damaged and without its repair, air conditioner in question cannot work.

 11                                  In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not replacing the coil of condenser. Had OPs paid sufficient attention to the problem of complainant and had they initiated appropriate steps to provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant by replacing the coil of condenser of said air conditioners on request of complainant, case of complainant would have been different. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is

cc no.108 of 2019

 

hereby allowed.  OPs are directed to replace the coil of condenser and effectively repair the air conditioners in question free of costs upto the satisfaction of complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protect Act. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-as consolidated compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 04.02.2020

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                     President