Haryana

Panchkula

CC/73/2014

PAWAN KUMAR GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S S.R. TRADERS - Opp.Party(s)

complainant in person

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	73 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	05.05.2014
Date of Decision	:	06.04.2015

                                                                                          

Pawan Kumar Garg, resident of # A-7, HSIIDC Apartments, Sector-14, Panchkula.

                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s S.R.Traders, Booth No.191, Sector-20, Panchkula.

2.       M/s Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd.,  Plot No.2, Kalkaji Industrial Area, New Delhi 110019 “manufacturer”.

                                                                                   ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Op No.1 already ex-parte.                         

Mr.Surinder Rana, authorized representative for the Op No.2.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. Initially, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2014. On 28.11.2014, the complainant has filed an application for impleading the manufacturer M/s Llyod Electric & Engineering Ltd., Plot No.2, Kalkaji Industrial Area, New Delhi 110019 “manufacturer” in which he stated that the Hon’ble State Commission has set aside the order dated 24.09.2014 by giving the direction to file an application for impleading manufacturer as necessary party before this Forum.  
2. Pawan Kumar-complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased 1.5 T 5 star Lloyd make split AC from Op for Rs.32,000/- vide invoice No.2238, dated 06.05.2012 inclusive the cost of stabilizer, installation and sales tax with the assurance of the Op that Lloyd make AC was one of the oldest and proved. But after installation, the AC did not work properly even a single day. The cooling effect was not there; digital temperature display on AC was not working properly and was displaying a single unit instead of two. The outside unit was also not working properly. The complainant made complaints and the same were attended only one or two times by a technician and the technician stated that the AC was defective. Thereafter, the complainant made many complaints through telephone and SMS. The complainant sent notices dated 06.11.2012 & 23.04.2013 and also sent show cause notice dated 09.10.2013 to the Op but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant sent show cause notice dated 26.03.2014. Sh.Naveen from Lloyd Company visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the AC. After inspection, Sh.Naveen agreed that the AC is defective and he would take up with the company authorities for getting that pending matter sorted out. A copy of invoice dated 06.05.2012 was also transmitted to him but the issue was not sought out. This act of the Op amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
3. Notice was issued to Op No.1 through process server and the same has been received back after effecting service. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2015.
4. The Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement and taken objection to the effect that the complainant approached the Op No.2 in the month of April, 2014 through the OP No.1 in respect of notice dated 26.03.2014. It is submitted that the representative of the Op No.1 visited the complainant to carry out necessary repairs, there he found that the AC needs PCB replacement and gas refilling but the representative of the Op No.1 was not allowed to carry out the necessary repairs and was asked that the complainant has been cheated by the OP No.1. It is submitted that in order to carry out the necessary repairs, the Op No.2 issued a letter dated 29.04.2014 requesting the complainant to inform the date & time so that necessary repairs could be carried out but the complainant did not respond. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions, the Op No.2 was ready and willing to carry out the necessary repaires. If the complainant agreed to get the AC repaired, the Op No.2 would repair the same to his entire satisfaction. It is denied that the AC was not working properly since purchase or not giving proper cooling. It is submitted that the OP was made aware of the defect only in the month of April, 2014 through the Op No.1. It is submitted that the Llyod product is quality product and is being used for years. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement has also been filed by the complainant.
6. In order to prove his case, the authorized representative for the complainant has made a separate statement in which he stated that evidence of the complainant is already on record. Now he do not want to file any more evidence and closed the evidence. On the other hand, authorized representative for the OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard authorized representative for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely and have also considered the written arguments submitted by the Op No.2.
8. OP No.2 has made a very meaningful averment in the course of the written statement. In preliminary objection No.2, OP No.2 has categorically announced an inclination to carryout the necessary repairs. It has further made an averment that the air conditioner purchased by the complainant had a full warranty for a period of one year and that the compressor carries warranty for a period of 5 years. Alongtherewith, OP No.2 has made an omnibus averment which is required to be extracted for appreciation “Even, in case the complainant still agrees to get the same repaired, the answering OP No.2 will repair the same free of cost to his entire satisfaction inspite of the fact that the warranty has expired, in order to upkeep the goodwill of the company”.
9. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be indicated that OP No.2 entered appearance and filed the written statement only after its impleadment, as a party respondent, under the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission came about.
10. On point of fact, we may notice that the complainant made documentation-based averments that he had made a grievance of the defect in the AC through a number of e-mails. In view of the fact that ex-parte proceedings have been ordered against OP No.1, the averments have not been controverted on behalf of the latter.
11. The foundational purpose of the coming into being of the Consumer Dispensation is to redress the grievance of a consumer in the matter of deficiency of service on the part of the party opposite. The purpose of the filing of this complaint would be fruitfully served if we direct OP No.2 to honour the averment quoted in the course of Para No.9 of this order.
12. While, thus, allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to repair the Air Conditioner of the complainant free of cost and to the entire satisfaction of the latter. The liability to comply with this order shall be joint and several of the OPs. The mere fact that OP No.2 has volunteered to repair it free of cost would not exonerate OP No.1 from a charge of deficiency in service and for not having attended to the grievance of the complainant inspite of having been addressed a number of times therefor. In case the repair is not carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant, the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to: -

a)       Refund the purchase price of the AC (at the time of purchase) to the complainant;

b)      Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and harassment undergone by him; and

c)       Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

13. (In case the order at item ‘a’ is complied with by OP No.2, it shall be entitled to have indemnification thereof from OP No.1).
14. We hope and trust that the complainant would not be un-reasonable in any manner and would facilitate the repair of the AC by OP No.1.
15. The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

06.04.2015   ANIL SHARMA        ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                 MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.  

 

 

                         

                                                          ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                               MEMBER