BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.309 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 31.07.2018

      Date of Decision:22.01.2020

Surinder Pal Singh son of Dyal Singh, Resident of H. No.619, Cheema Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Lloyd Electric & Engineering Limited (the business of OP No.1 taken over by) Havells India Ltd. having its Corporate Office at QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Noida (U.P.)-201304.

2.       Rimpi Radios, 251, New Jawahar Nagar, Near Chunmun Mall, Jalandhar Through its Proprietor.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. S. S. Turna, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he has purchased a one Llyod AC 1.5 Ton LS19A3B for Rs.27,000/- against Invoice No.2576 dated 16.06.2017 from Rimpi Radios Unit III, 251 New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar OP No.2, who is the authorized dealer/distributor of OP No.1. Before purchasing the above said AC, engineer/technician of the OPs visited the house of the complainant in order to see the room where the AC was going to be installed and engineer of the OP advised the complainant that 1.5 TN AC is sufficient and accordingly, the complainant purchased the AC and got it installed. The warranty of the AC was for one year. As there was defect and not cooling the room and accordingly, on 28.05.2018 the complainant complained to the company in this respect vide complaint No.HIL 280518667503. The grievances of the complainant is that temperature of the room was not coming down from 32 degree and requested to the OP to take step for the repair/replace the said defective AC. Technician from the OP Sh. Rajesh Kumar visited the house of the complainant and tried to repair the AC, but could not to do so and ultimately, made a false report that room was over size i.e. 20’x 10’. Then again the complainant made a complaint to the OP on 30.05.2018 and this time customer care of the OP No.1 gave a promise that the complaint will be solved within 48 hours, but nothing was done in this regard. Then again complainant made a complaint through telephone message on 30.06.2018 to the OP, but again nothing has been done to the satisfaction of the complainant. The OPs as well as its technician are not paying any attention to the problem of the complainant instead they are causing mental pain, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant and accordingly, the complainant served a legal notice upon the respondents through his counsel on 03.07.2018, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to  pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further, directed to pay the price of the AC of Rs.27,000/- and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but OP No.2 despite service failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 duly served and appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the business of all consumer durables of Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. has been taken over by Havells India Ltd. In view of this, Havells India Limited is the answering OP in the present complaint and further averred that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the OP. It is further submitted that the complainant failed to place on record any expert report in order to prove manufacturing defect and has not disclosed the fact that he has installed the AC at his shop. Actual fact is that the answering OP’s engineer/technician never visited to the shop of the complainant before installation of the AC in order to see the room size as this is not the course of practice rather the complainant has concocted a story in order to get the undue benefit of law by stating false facts in the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the AC has been purchased by the complainant as per Invoice on record and further admitted that complaint dated 28.05.2018 and 30.05.2018 was received, but the same was duly entertained and technician of the OP visited the house of the complainant and found that AC was running perfectly fine as per its technician specification and the technician also observed that the shop room size of the customer was larger than the cooling capacity of the AC due to which the cooling might not have been effective and the same thing is mentioned in the Job Sheet and further submitted that no technical defect was found in the product installed at the premises of the complainant, therefore, question of replacement does not arise. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.CA-1 to Ex.CA-11 and closed the evidence.

4.                Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW-1 along with some documents Ex.R-1/1 and Ex.R-1/2 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP No.1 as well as gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                In nutshell, the factum in regard to purchase of Llyod AC 1.5 Ton by the complainant from OP No.2, who is the dealer/distributor of the manufacturing firm/OP No.1, against Invoice dated 16.06.2017 Ex.CA-1, are admitted fact. It is also not in dispute that the warranty of the AC is one year and the complaint made by the complainant on 28.05.2018 was well within warranty period.

7.                Now, we have to consider the main allegation of the complainant that the AC, so purchased by the complainant is defective one, being reason the same is not giving an appropriate cooling in the room and this matter was brought to the notice of the OPs number of times, who also issued Job Sheets Ex.CA-3 and Ex.CA-4 dated 28.05.2018 and 30.05.2018, respectively and thereafter, emails were also sent by the complainant to the OPs, the said emails are Ex.CA-5 to Ex.CA-7. Admittedly, no reply of the emails Ex.CA-5 to Ex.CA-7 was ever given by the OPs. It is fundamental duty of the manufacturer as well as distributor/dealer to give appropriate reply of the complaint, whenever made by any consumer, as made by the complainant also, but for the best known reason, both the OPs did not bother to give reply, which shows that there must be some manufacturing defect in the AC, otherwise what was the problem to the OP for not replying the emails of the complainant.

8.                Further, we have also gone through the Job Sheets placed on the file by the complainant, which are Ex.CA-3 and Ex.CA-4. Similar Job Sheets are also produced on the file by the OPs as Ex.R-1/1 and Ex.R-1/2. In both the Job Sheets in column of Complaint is mentioned as ‘No Cooling’ and further, the observation of the engineer/technician is also given in the column of Description i.e. ‘Room size is bigger than the capacity of the AC 1.5 Ton’. Now we have to analyze the observation given by technician/mechanic of the OPs qua size of the room as mentioned in the Job Sheet 20’x10’. Though, we accept that the room size is bigger for AC 1.5 Ton, but it is further duty of the OPs to establish on the file by way of some documentary evidence to prove that how much capacity of AC is required for a room of the size 20’x10’ and further to establish the size of the room for 1.5 Ton AC. These are the technical evidence and moreover, the plea taken by the OPs is to be established and proved by the complainant by bringing on the file cogent and convincing evidence to prove the capacity of the AC for the room size of the complainant, but no such type of evidence has been brought on the file by the OP, which shows that the story propounded by the technician/engineer of the OP is not having any solid substances, rather it is self made story just to satisfy the complainant from his grievances and accordingly, we find that the OPs did not bother to repair the AC of the complainant for a long time despite receiving so many complaints by way of Job Sheets as well as by emails and thus, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the price of the AC i.e. Rs.27,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 31.07.2018, till realization and further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                                 Jyotsna                            Karnail Singh

22.01.2020                                Member                          President