DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR

                     Complaint No.186 of 2018                                  Date of Instt.30.04.2018                                             Date of Decision: 20.04.2021

Rakesh Dhir s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Dhir, r/o IC Bank Enclave, Model Town, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Rimpi Sales Corporation, Pruthi Heights, Near Sai Dass   School Jalandhar through its Proprietor/Partner/MD

2.       M/s Sharp India Ltd., Plot No. A9, 3^RD Floor, BITS Towers Sector 125, Noida through its Managing Director/Director.

3.       M/s Jeeves Consumer Services (P) Ltd., SCF 4, Basement, the Highland Society, NAV, Baltana, Zirakpur, Punjab through its Proprietor/Partner/MD.

…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer  Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

MRS.JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :

For Complainant              :         Sh.Satnam Singh, Advocate

For OP no.1                    :        Sh.A.S Qaumi, Advocate

For OPs no.2 & 3              :        Ex-parte.

ORDER:-

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that OP no.2 is a company dealing in manufacturing and sale of home appliances and other consumer durable including air conditioners and the OP no.1 is the authorized dealer of OP no.2. On the assurance given by OP no.1, the complainant purchased 1.5 ton air conditioner make Sharp Model AH-X-18PHT.S Type Eco-Inverter Split vide invoice no.41 dated 12.04.2014 amounting to Rs.54,000/-. OP no.1 assured on behalf of OP no.2 air conditioners compressor comes with five years warranty and no problem will be faced by him after purchasing the AC. In the very next year of purchase of air conditioner a snag developed in its blower fan and the said air conditioner had a breakdown and though it was under warranty even then complainant was charged for its repair. In the year 2016, a problem again erupted in the air conditioner and he was told that he will have to pay Rs.3000/- for refilling the gas, which was again paid by him. In April 2017 again problem erupted in the air conditioner and it stopped working and he made complaint with customer care centre and sent engineer through their service channel partner M/s Jeeves Consumer Services (P) Ltd i.e .OP no.3 who told that there was a fault in PCP for which the engineers of OP no.3 charged Rs.6000/- and complaint was closed on 23.04.2017.  Again the same problem reoccurred and complaint was made by him with customer care and OP no.3. After visit of engineer who took PCP and internal transformer from the air conditioner for repair and told him that repair would cost of Rs.17,000/- as cost of new PCP and it was further told that inspite of such exorbitant cost, the said PCP will not carry any warranty and when it was protested by complainant the engineers told him that they will take up the matter with higher officials but to no avail. The recovered parts were taken for repair which lying with OP no.3 and complainant is time and again receiving SMS that repair of AC is being rescheduled on request of complainant. He also served a legal notice dated 30.08.2017 upon OPs but of no use. From the chronology of repair required by AC clearly shows that the product supplied to him was of sub standard quality and much inferior quality that what was promised and assured by OP no.2. One person namely Mr. Jatinder having mobile phone in September 2017 gave call on complainant’s phone that repair of AC is not possible, so they will either replace the AC or will refund the cost of ACT but he refused to fulfill the assurance.  Due to above said act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to pay cost of AC of Rs.54,000/-, besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Notice sent to OPs no.2 and 3 by registered post with AD on 04.05.2018. Sufficient period from service has been lapsed. Regd. Cover and AD not received back. As such, OPs no.2 and 3 are proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.06.2018 passed by this Commission.
3. OP no.1 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. On merits, it was averred that OP no.1 had never committed any unfair trade practice or deficient. After sale of the product, the complainant never approached OP no.1.  No claim is made against the OP no.1 as product was sold after checking by the complainant.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP no.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ravinder Pal Singh Partner of Rimpi Sales Corporation.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, none has appeared on behalf of OP no.1 whereas OPs no.2 and 3 exparte.
6. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A on the record in support of his case. He alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in his affidavit. Ex.C-1 is copy of bill dated 12.04.2014 for Rs.54,000/-.  Ex.C-3 is copy of legal notice dated 30.08.2017 on the record. Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-6 is copy of terms and conditions.
7. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/A of Ravinder Pal Singh Partner on the record. This witness stated that the product had sold to complainant as per warranty given by OP no.2. This witness denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
8. The main point of controversy involved in the present case is that deficiency or unfair trade practice attributed on the part of OPs or not? The complainant purchased 1.5 ton air conditioner make Sharp Model AH-X-18PHT.S Type Eco-Inverter Split vide invoice Ex.C-1 no.41 dated 12.04.2014 amounting to Rs.54,000/- from OP no.1. Ex.C-6 is copy of warranty card of the AC in question. In this warranty card, it is clearly mentioned that sharp air conditioner comes with five years warranty on compressor and one year warranty on all the parts. Ex.C-6 is the vital document on the record. The complainant purchased the AC in question on 12.04.2014 as per invoice Ex.C-1 on the record and the complainant filed the present complaint on 30.04.2018. The complainant has filed the present complaint within the period of the AC in question. The complainant alleged in para no.13 of his complaint that Mr. Jatinder having mobile no. 8289067995 in month September 2017 gave a call on complainant’s mobile that repair of AC is not possible, so they will either replace the AC or will refund the cost of AC and when complainant contacted within two days, he refused to fulfill the assurance. This act of OP no.1 proves the deficiency or unfair trade practice. On the other hand, OP no.1 has relied upon only affidavit of Ravinder Pal Singh Partner of OP no.1 M/s Rimpi Sales Corporation. Except this affidavit OP no.1 has not produced any document in support of his case. OPs no.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte.
9. From perusal of entire record of the file, we are of the considered view that on the assurance given by OP no.1 the complainant purchased the AC in question for amount of Rs.54,000/- from OP no.1 but after next year from the purchase of the said AC, it has breakdown and though it was under warranty even then he was charged for its repair. In the year 2016 a problem again erupted in the AC and complainant was charged Rs.3000/- for refilling the gas, which was paid by complainant. This act of OP no.1 is wrong and against the conditions of its warranty card Ex.C-6 on the record. Further in the year 2017 again problem erupted in the AC and it stopped working and then engineer of OP no.3 charged Rs.6000/- and complaint was closed on 23.04.2017 without any rectification in the AC in question.  The same problem reoccurred time to time.  After visiting of the Engineer who took the PCP and internal transformer from the AC for repair and told him that repair would cost of Rs.17,000/- as cost of new PCP. The OPs charged from the complainant on various occasions unauthorizedly. The OPs not produced any cogent evidence or document in support of their case that they rectified the AC in question.
10. The above said act and conduct of OPs, proves that they supplied substandard and inferior quality of AC in question to complainant on wrong assurances given to him. The complainant purchased the AC in question from OP no.1. OP no.2 is a company dealing in manufacturing and sale appliances. The OP no.1 is authorized dealer of OP no.2. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and OPs no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of AC  in question i.e. Rs.54,000/- as per retail invoice Ex.C-1 on the record. The complainant is also entitled Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental harassment as well as cost of the litigation. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are also directed to deposit Rs.3000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Commission.
11. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

12.     Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and spread of Covid-19. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                               Announced in open Commission

                     20^th of April 2021

                     Kuljit Singh

                     (President)

                     Jyotsna

                     (Member)