DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 152/2014
Date of Institution : 17.07.2014
Date of Decision : 06.04.2015
In the matter of:
Vijay Kumar @ Happy aged about 53 years son of Sh. Chahan Ram resident of H.No. B-X/918, K.C. Road Barnala District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Mitusubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Corporate & Head Office 10179, G-1 Mall, W.E.A Abdul Aziz Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (India) through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Navyug Electrics, Opp. Ahata Narian Singh Barnala, through its Prop./partner Banwari Lal.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. R.K. Jain, Advocate
For opposite party No. 1 : Sh. Gagandeep Garg, Advocate
For opposite party No. 2 : Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak Advocate
ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Vijay Kumar @ Happy complainant (hereinafter referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein referred as to OPs for short), on the ground that, CC intended to purchase one AC of Mitusubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., and visited the shop of O.P-2, who introduced himself as authorized dealer of Mitusubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., and told that, he had sold number of ACs of Mitusubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. It is alleged that, on the assurance of O.P-2 CC purchased one AC of Mitusubishi Model SRK13 CJV-6, from the O.P-2, who is the authorized dealer of O.P-1, by paying an amount of Rs. 33,800/- and O.P-2 issued invoice No. 3848 dated 28.3.2013, to the CC.
It is alleged that, after some time in the month of July 2013, AC gave some problem of Leakage of water and due to the leakage of water, the cup board of the CC was damaged. CC immediately lodged the complaint with the O.P-2, who lodged the complaint further with the O.P-1, but no response was given by the O.Ps nor they have provided services to the CC, as agreed. CC sent complaint through email to the O.P-1.
It is further alleged that, the Service Engineers Maninder Garg, Devinder Sharma and Shailendra Kumar Head of sale and service on behalf of O.P-1 contacted the CC and demanded a photo copy of the bill. On this CC sent the scanned copy of bill through email to the O.P-1 and after verification, O.P-1 sent an Service Engineer, who inspected the AC and told the CC that, this AC is having manufacturing defect and the same cannot be repaired fully. It is alleged that, the Service Engineer did some minor repairs and started the AC temporarily.
It is further alleged that, CC number of times approached the shop of O.P-2, who told the CC that, your complaint has already been referred to the O.P-1, for the replacement of AC kindly wait for some time. CC sent number of emails to the O.P-1 since May 2013, to provide services and replace the AC, but of no use.
It is further alleged that, in the month of March 2014, CC approached the other dealer of O.P-1, who advised the CC to contact with the O.Ps. On 25.6.2014, CC visited the shop of O.P-2 to replace the AC with the new one with further warranty, but the O.P-2 refused to do any anything or replace the AC in question.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service and un-fair trade practice on the part of the OPs, CC has sought the following reliefs against the OPs.-
1) OPs be directed to replace the AC in question with the new one with further warranty.
2) OPs be further directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Complaint of the CC is signed and verified. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, the OP-1 has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that, CC purchased the above said AC from an unauthorized shopkeeper and the O.P-2 never appointed as authorized dealer/sale counter, by the O.P-1, as such the O.P-2 had no right to sale the brand of O.P-1.
It is further averred in the legal objections that, before filing written version, O.P-1 moved an application on 22.8.2014 to disclose the bill number and the name of the dealer from whom the O.P-2 purchased the AC in question, which was sold to the CC, but O.P-2 failed to produce the bill regarding the purchase of above said AC. However, the O.P-2 in reply to the application mentioned that, he had purchased the AC in question from M/s Ganesh Electronics, Near Big Chowk, Main Bazar, Sangrur only.
It is further submitted that, on the complaint of the CC, O.P-1 deputed Local Mechanic to inspect the AC of the CC, who reported that, the machine of the AC in question is not installed as per the norms of the O.P-1, as such the O.P-1 cannot provide any service to the CC. Further, CC has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against the O.P-1 etc.
On merits, all the allegations of the CC are denied.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The version of OP-1 is signed and verified.
In reply, OP-2 has also raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that, complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and filed only to harass and blackmail the O.P-2. It is averred in the preliminary objections that, the AC in question purchased by the CC on 28.3.2013 and the present complaint has been filed on 15.7.2014, as such the warranty period of one year has been lapsed. Moreover, it is clearly mentioned in the bill that, the “Guarantee only Company service centre” and the CC had not made any written complaint to the authorized service centre at Barnala, situated at K.C. Road, Barnala. Further, CC has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious etc.
On merits, it is averred that, the O.P-2 never alleged himself as authorized dealer of the company. It is further averred that, CC is an educated person and is typist at Barnala Courts and he purchased the AC from the O.P-2 after admitting the conditions and note, which are printed on the bill. It is specifically submitted that, the O.P-2 is always ready to sort out the problem of the CC even after the lapse of warranty period, but the CC was adamant with this condition that, the AC of the CC should be replaced with the new one, which is not possible for a small shopkeeper like O.P-2.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The version of OP-2 is signed and verified. Further, the same is supported by an affidavit of Banwari Lal.
3. CC in support of his claim, has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 28.3.2013 Ex.C-2, copies of emails Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9, affidavit of Ramandeep Rajput Ex.C-10, affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of the CC, OP-1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Maninder Garg Ex.OP-1/1, affidavit of Raghvir Singh Ex.O.P-1/2, application dated 25.8.2014 Ex.O.P-1/3, copy of reply of application dated 11.9.2014 Ex.O.P-1/4 and closed its evidence. Further, OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Banwari Lal Ex.OP-2/1, copy of bill dated 28.3.2013 Ex.O.P-2/2, affidavit of Jagsir Singh Ex.O.P-2/3 and closed its evidence.
5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, versions filed by the OPs-1 and 2 and evidence of parties and also heard Counsel for the parties at length.
6. It is an admitted fact that, CC has purchased the Air Conditioner in question from the OP-2 vide invoice No. 3848 dated 28.3.2013, by paying an amount of Rs. 33,800/- Ex.C-2, which is manufactured by OP-1. It is also admitted fact by the O.P-2 that, the Air Conditioner purchased by the CC was having the warranty of one year.
The allegation of the CC is that, after some time in the month of July 2013, the AC developed defect of leakage of water and due to the leakage of water, the cup board of the CC was damaged and in this regard CC had sent emails to the O.Ps to provide service and remove the defect of leakage of water, which proves from Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9.
The O.P-2 in support of its version has tendered into evidence affidavit of one Maninder Garg Ex.O.P-1/1, wherein, it is mentioned that, on the complaint of the CC, O.P-1 deputed Local Mechanic to inspect the AC in question, who inspected the AC in the presence of CC and reported that, the machine is not installed as per the norms of the O.P-1, but the O.P-1 has failed to produce on record any expert report in this regard. The O.P-1 further failed to prove that, the AC in question is not having any manufacturing defect and the problem has developed in the AC due to the fault of CC, as the CC has installed the AC from an unauthorized mechanic. Further, all the OPs in their version at any point of time not specifically denied the allegation of the CC regarding leakage of water. Even, both the O.Ps have failed to produce on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record in support of their version.
During arguments, Ld. Advocate for the CC has argued that, Raghbir Singh never visited the residence of CC and has given false and concocted affidavit, which has not been rebutted by the O.P-1. He further argued that, Service Engineer Maninder Garg, Devinder Sharma and Shelinder Kumar the head of Sales and Service of O.P-1 after obtaining the photocopy of the bill, got the AC inspected and informed the CC that, the AC is question is having manufacturing defect and they will have to contact their seniors to get the same replaced. Ld. Advocate for the CC has further argued that, the defect in the AC was reported in the month of July 2013, which is well within the warranty. Even, the O.Ps have not rebutted the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Mechanic Ex.C-11, wherein, it is mentioned that, the AC is installed properly and there is no installation defect in the AC.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Gujrat State Commission in case titled Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Dinesh Thakur & Others reported 2014 (2) CLT-381 (GJ) that.-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g)- Manufacturing defect- Within two months of the purchase of the new Honda City car, the tyre of the car was damaged-Held-When the tyre was damaged within 2 months, it was the duty of the manufacturer of the tyre to show reasons for the damage and they failed to do so- It was for the appellant to prove before the Forum that the damage caused to the tyre was not due to any manufacturing defect-Appeal dismissed.”
Similarly, in the present case manufacturer, the O.P-1 failed to show reasons for the defect in the Air Conditioner and also failed to prove before the Forum that, the defect arose in the Air Conditioner was not due to any manufacturing defect. Further, CC clearly mentioned in his complaint that, immediately after some time, the Air Conditioner in dispute gave some problem of leakage of water, which fact also not denied by any of the OPs. We are of the view that, O.P-1 cannot absolve from its liability by stating that, the O.P-2 is not his authorized dealer, in the lack of any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence.
An application dated 14.11.2014 moved by the CC, for impleading Surindera AC, Dhanaula Road, Barnala is pending, which is also perused. As in our view, the Air Conditioner in question is having a manufacturing defect and OP-1 is only liable for this deficiency. Accordingly, in our view there is no need to implead Surindera AC, Dhanaula Road, Barnala as OP-3, so the application dated 14.11.2014 is dismissed.
In view of the aforementioned facts, circumstances and citation, there is clear cut 'deficiency in service' on the part of OP-1. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint against the OP-1 and order the OP-1 to replace the defective Air Conditioner of the CC with a new one of the same model alongwith new warranty. We further order the OP-1 to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the CC, for causing physical and mental harassment to him and also dragging him into unwanted litigation.
This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
6th Day of April 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
