BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.335 of 2015

Date of Instt. 12.08.2015

Date of Decision :1.6.2016

Ashok Chabbra aged about 54 years son of Lachhman R/o W.N.25, Basti Danishamandan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Nova Cool Engineers, 161, Dyal Nagar, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory/owner/incharge.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Amit Beri Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Gagandeep Mehta Adv., counsel for the OP.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party (herein called as OP) on the averments that complainant got his air conditioner checked from the engineer of the OP on 27.6.2015 who told the complainant that the gas of the AC has leaked and it has to be refilled and demanded Rs.2200/- for the same. The complainant got the gas refilled in his AC from the engineer of the OP and paid Rs.2200/-. The engineer of the OP gave three months warranty. After the job was done, the concerned engineer of the OP told the complainant that he should switch on the AC 2/3 hours continuously. Complainant switched on the AC and after 2/3 hours noticed that the said AC was again not giving cooling properly. Complainant again approached the OP in this regard but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and the complainant served legal notice dated 20.7.2015. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to repair the AC. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that complainant lodged the complaint with the OP on 21.6.2015 and the engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant and inspected the window AC. After inspection, the engineer of the OP advised the complainant as the AC is very old and the leakage may occur from some other place. The engineer pointed out that the gas of the AC has leaked and it requires refilling of the AC. Resultantly, the engineer of the OP refilled the gas after plugging the leaked point and charged Rs.2200/- from the complainant. The OP denied that in the last year on 11.8.2014, the same problem occurred in the AC of the complainant and the engineer of the OP filled in the gas and charged Rs.2200/-. There is no such complaint in this regard with the Ops. After completing the job i.e. refilling of the gas in window AC of the complainant, was installed on 27.7.2015 and the same was duly checked by the complainant to his complete satisfaction regarding the cooling of the AC and then complainant paid the amount of Rs.2200/- to the engineer of the OP. Thereafter, no complaint was received from the complainant. Ops denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his air conditioner checked from the engineer of the OP on 27.6.2015 who told the complainant that the gas of the AC has leaked and it has to be refilled and demanded Rs.2200/- for the same. The complainant got the gas refilled in his AC from the engineer of the OP and paid Rs.2200/- vide service report Ex.C2. The engineer of the OP gave three months warranty. After the job was done the concerned engineer of the OP told the complainant that he should switch on the AC 2/3 hours continuously. Resultantly, complainant switched on the AC and after 2/3 hours noticed that the said AC was again not giving cooling properly. Complainant again approached the OP in this regard but the OPO did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and the complainant served legal notice dated 20.7.2015 Ex.C3 upon the OP through registered post, postal receipts of which is Ex.C4. The OP sent reply but did not made the AC functional. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OP is that complainant lodged the complaint with the OP on 21.6.2015 and the engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant and inspected the window AC. After inspection, the engineer of the OP advised the complainant as the AC is very old and the leakage may occur from some other place. The engineer pointed out that the gas of the AC has leaked and it requires refilling of the AC. Resultantly, the engineer of the OP refilled the gas after plugging leaked point and charged Rs.2200/- from the complainant vide receipt Ex.C2. The OP denied that in the last year on 11.8.2014, the same problem occurred in the AC of the complainant and the engineer of the OP filled the gas and charged Rs.2200/-. There is no such complaint in this regard with the Ops. After completing the job i.e. refilling of the gas in window AC of the complainant was installed on 27.7.2015 and the same was duly checked by the complainant to his complete satisfaction regarding the cooling of the AC and then complainant paid the amount of Rs.2200/- to the engineer of the OP. Thereafter, no complaint was received from the complainant. However, OP received legal notice Ex.C3 from the complainant to which the OP sent reply Ex.OP1 submitting that they had filed the gas in the AC of the complainant after plugging leakage in cooling coil and had given warranty of three months against leakage of gas from that plugged point. However, the AC of the complainant is very old. The leakage may have occurred from some other place. So, they requested complainant to let the engineer of the OP examine the AC once again and they are ready to fill the gas again free of cost as a special case after plugging the fresh leakage point. This reply was also sent by the OP to the complainant through registered post, postal receipt of which are Ex.OP2 and Ex. OP3 but instead of allowing engineers of OP to check and rectify the problem in the AC of the complainant, the complainant filed the present complaint. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant approached the OP on 27.6.2015 vide complaint No.4560 regarding non cooling of the AC of the complainant. Resultantly, the engineers of the OP visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the window AC of the complainant and found that the gas of the AC has leaked and it required to be refilled. So, with the consent of the complainant, the engineers of the OP refilled the gas in the AC of the complainant and charged Rs.2200/- vide receipt Ex.C2 and gave warranty of three months. Thereafter, the AC of the complainant again did not give proper cooling and the complainant approached the OP and served legal notice dated 20.7.2015 Ex.C3 upon the OP. The OP sent reply to the complainant dated 24.7.2015 Ex.OP1 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3, in which the OP requested the complainant to allow the engineer of the OP to examine the AC once again and they are ready to refill the gas again free of cost as a special case after plugging the fresh leakage point, if any. But complainant did not allow the engineers of the OP to do so and filed present complaint. The warranty provides only service by the OP. The OP is still ready to examine the AC of the complainant and to fill the gas free of cost after plugging the fresh leakage point, if any. But inspite of this reply received from the OP, the complainant did not allow the engineer of the OP to examine his AC and to fill the gas again free of cost after plugging fresh leakage point, if any. Resultantly, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant. As such, the present complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, the complainant is directed to allow the engineer of the OP to examine the AC of the complainant and fill in gas free of cost after plugging the fresh leakage point, if any. OP is directed to do needful within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

1.6.2016 Member President