OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.47/10
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3)Md Jamatul Islam - Member
M/S Life Pharmacy - Complainant
G.S.Road,Ulubari Chariali
Guwahati-7,
District: Kamrup (Metro, Assam.
-vs-
1) M/S LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd. -Opp. parties
C.K.Agarwala Path, Chenikuthi.
P.O.Guwahati-781003, Assam.
2)M/S Shree Agency,
Saniram Bora Path, Ulubari.P.O.
Guwahati-781007, Assam
Appearance : 1)Ld.advocate Mr.Rohit Gaur for the complainant .
2)Ld.advocate Mr.Nabarun Talukdar for the opp.parties.
Date of oral argument - 07.08.18
Date of judgment - 13.08.18
JUDGMENT
This is a case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1) The complaint filed by M/S Life Pharmacy, Ulubari Chariali against M/S L.G. Electronics India Pvt.Ltd. and Sree Agency , Guwahati was admitted on 28.4.10 and notices was served on the opp.parties and they filed written statement separately. The complainant filed evidence of Dindayal Chauhan and he was cross examined by the opp.party side. The opp.party side filed evidence of Prasanta Nayok and he was cross-examined by the complainant side . Both sides’ ld counsel filed written argument. On 22.6.18 we have heard oral argument of Ld advocate Mr.Rohit Gaur for the complainant and of Ld.advocate Mr.Nabarun Talukdar for the opp.parties on and today we deliver the judgment, which is as below-
2) The complaint case in brief is that they had purchased an Air-Conditioner model No. LPK 3685 QC manufactured by Opp.Party No.1 from Opp.Party No.2 vide Invoice No. SA/09-10/110 dtd.24.8.2009 for Rs.52,000/-, but from the very beginning of it is purchased had not been functioning properly and it failed to cool the room and he then complaint to the opp.parties personally as well as their toll free No. 18001809999 and the opp.party sides service personnel tried to repair the Air Conditioner, but could not rectify the defect of Air Conditioner and they then lodged complaint to the opp.party to rectify the defect vide complaint No.
Sl No. Complaint No. Date
1. N9-C 82402074 24.8.2009
2. N9-C 83103352 31.8.2009
3. N9-C 0501922 5.9.2009
4. IND-91401827 14.9.2009
5. C-09A 0201758 1.10.2009
6. C-09A 1404374 14.10.2009
7. C-1040808230 19.3. 2010
8. C-1040808230 8.4. 2010
But they did not rectify the defect and then they requested the opp.parties to replace the defective Air Conditioner with a new one. For fixing the Air Conditioner, they spent expenditure of Rs.15,000/- to making the room air tight. The opp.party has not replaced the Air Conditioner with a new one. For not replacing the Air Conditioner, they had to suffer much. Therefore, they prays to this forum to direct the opp.parties to refund the value of Air Conditioner of Rs.52,000/- and also to pay Rs.15,000/-, which they had expenditured in making the room air tight and also to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- as well as interest @12% alongwith cost of the complaint.
3) The pleading of Opp.Party No.1 is that the petition is not maintainable; the suit is barred by limitation; there is no cause of action for filing the instant complaint. After receiving the complaint of the complainant, their service engineer inspected the Air Conditioner and found that there is no technical defect, rather they have observed that two sides of room i.e. southern side and western side of the entire wall is all transparent glass without any tinted colour and for the whole day sunlight enters into the pharmacy through the largest southern facing glass wall , but there is no defect in the Air Conditioner and Air Conditioner was installed in the said positions on the instruction of the complainant and as such there is no deficiency on their part. The complainant sustained no loss as stated and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) The pleading of Opp.Party No.2 is that the complaint is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. As Nokia Service Centre was not made party the complaint cannot be decided in absence of Nokia Service Centre, which is the service provider of L.G.Goods. They have no knowledge of the defect of the Air Conditioner, and the complainant also had not inform them about that matter. If the defect is detected, then the manufacturer is liable, but they as seller is not liable. The complainant illegally seeks compensation from them and they did not cause any harassment to the complainant. Opp.Party No.1 and L.G.Care Service Centre is liable to attend the complaints of the complainant, but they are not liable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5) We have perused the pleading as well as the evidence of the parties. We have also perused submission of both side’s ld.counsels and found that both sides admit that Opp.Party No.2 M/S Sree Agency, Ulubari , Guwahati had fixed one air conditioner model No. CPK 3685 QC manufactured by Opp.Party No.1 M/S LG Electronic India Ltd. in the Pharmacy of M/S the Life Pharmacy, Ulubari Chariali, Guwahati which was purchased from Opp.Party No.1 at Rs.52,000/- vide Invoice No. SA-09-10/110 dtd. 28.4.2009 but after installation of said air-conditioner it has failed to cool down the temperature of the said room and then the complainant requested the Opp.Party No.2 to repair the defect in the air conditioner. The complainant side’s plea is that inspite of their request Opp.Party No.2 failed to rectify the defect of the said air-conditioner and he requested the both the opp.parties with a new one , but they did not comply his request in this respect . The plea of the Opposite party side is that after receiving complaint from the complainant their service engineer inspected the room of the air-conditioner and found that there is no technical defect in the air-conditioner, but found that the walls southern side and the western side of the room are made of transparent glass without any tinted colour, and for the whole day sunlight enters into the said pharmacy through the southern facing glass wall and that keeps the room hot and another air-conditioner was installed in the said position at the instruction of the complainant . The complainant states the same thing in his evidence what he states in his complaint. But in his cross -examination, he states that he installed one more air-conditioner manufactured by Videocon and now two air-conditioners are running perfectly. From this version of the complainant it is clear that the concerned LG air-conditioner Model No. LPK 3650C which was installed by Opp.Party No.2 in the pharmacy of the complainant is not defective one but it alone could not cool down temperature of the room as the sunlight pierces through the transparent glass wall fixed on the entire southern side and western side wall of the room and that keeps the room hot and that hotness could not be cooled down by the said air-conditioner alone. Therefore, we must hold that the plea of the Opp.Party No.1 that the said air-conditioner has no technical defect but due to piercing sun light to the room through the southern and western transparent glass wall caused the house hot which cannot be cooled down by one air-conditioner stands proved; and therefore, we hold that the complainant has no cause of action for filing complaint against the opp.parties and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6) Because of what has been discussed above we hold that the complaint has no merit and it is liable to be dismissed . Accordingly, it is dismissed on contest.
Given under our hands and seal on this 13th August ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
