Haryana

Karnal

CC/474/2020

Taranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sargam India Electronic Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kamboj

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 474 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.30.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:21.11.2022

 

Taranjeet Singh son of Shri Amarjeet Singh, resident of house no.4, ward no.5, Taraori, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Sargam India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., plot no.3, Avtar Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, through its proprietor.

2.     LG Electronics India (Pvt.) Ltd. Branch office, plot no.51, Udyog Vihar Surjapur Kansa Road, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Parveen Kamboj, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                    Shri Mohit Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had purchased one SAC LGKSAQ18SNZD 90INARV022510 for a sum of Rs.42,500/- from the OP no.1, vide invoice no.Karn-18-6045 dated 20.03.2019. At the time of sale OP no.1 assured that the product is very good and gave the guarantee of 12 months and said that if there is any fault arises during that period the said product will be replaced with new one without any delay. The complainant has installed the said AC, but from the very date of installation of AC, the AC was not cooling properly. The complainant contacted the OP no.1 and made a complaint regarding the aforesaid problem and on the asking of the OP no.1, the complainant made complaint in the office of OP no.2 many times. The engineer of the OP no.1 came to the house of complainant and conducted the physical verification of the said AC but neither repaired AC nor disclosed the defects of the AC to the complainant, he says only that there is a technical defects in the said AC. Thereafter, complainant made many complaints to the OPs and requested to replace the defective AC, but OP no.2 is postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. On 23.02.2020, the engineer of the OP no.2 came to the house of the complainant and updated the software of the AC with the assurance that after the update of software there must be chances to remove the technical defects from the said AC, but inspite of updating there was no change in the cooling of the said AC. This fact is clearly proved that the OPs have supplied the defective AC to the complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.08.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has purchased one split air conditioner manufactured by LG from OP no.1 with the one year comprehensive warranty. OP no.1 has given the warranty on behalf of OP no.2 i.e. company.  OP no.1 has given the sealed pack and new split AC. It is further pleaded that complainant never approached the OP no.1 for the complaint of AC. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.2 i.e. LG electronics is a renowned company in Electronic products and commodities and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the world class electronic product is highly sophisticated. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased the AC in question on 20.03.2019. But it is denied that a guarantee of one year was given on the said AC. It is a warranty (not guarantee) of one year on the said AC. It is also denied that if there any fault arises during that period, the said product will be replaced with new one as alleged. It is further pleaded that no technician has ever stated that the AC in question is having any technical defect. On receipt of complaint, the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and found that AC in perfect working condition. The filter of the AC in question had been cleaned on 17.07.2019 and 03.09.2019. The software of the AC has been updated and the AC was working perfectly. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of tax invoice Ex.C3, copy of text messages Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, Ex.C8 to C11, Ex.C16 to Ex.C20, photos of remote of AC and AC Ex.C7 and Ex.C12, Ex.C21 Ex.C14 to Ex.C15, copy of call text Ex.C13, copy of weather photo of AC Ex.C22 and close the evidence on 08.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             OP no.1 led no evidence after availing several opportunities despite last two opportunities. On 07.07.2022 none has put into appearance on behalf of OP no.1 and opted to be proceeded against exparte by the Commission.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Batra Ex.OP2/A and copy of reply of legal notice Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 07.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties

9.             Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased one AC for a sum of Rs.42,500/- from the OP no.1, vide invoice dated 20.03.2019 with the guarantee of 12 months. The complainant has installed the said AC, but from the very date of installation the said AC was not cooling properly. The complainant contacted the OPs and made a complaint regarding the aforesaid problem. The engineer of the OP no.1 came to the house of complainant and conducted the physical verification of the said AC but OPs neither repaired AC nor disclosed the defects of the AC to the complainant, OP only said that there is a technical defect in the said AC. Thereafter, complainant made many complaints to the OPs and requested to replace the defective AC, but OPs failed to do so. On 23.02.2020, the engineer of the OP no.2 came to the house of the complainant and updated the software of the AC with the assurance that after the update of software there must be chances to remove the technical defects  but inspite of update there was no change in the cooling of the said AC and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant has purchased one split air conditioner manufactured by LG from OP no.1 with the one year comprehensive warranty. OP no.1 has given the warranty on behalf of OP no.2 company.  OP no.1 has given the sealed pack and new split AC. He further argued that complainant never approached the OP no.1 for the complaint of AC and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OPs no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant had purchased the AC in question on 20.03.2019 with the warranty (not guarantee) of one year. He further argued that no technician has ever stated that the AC in question is having any technical defect. On receipt of complaint, the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and found that AC in perfect working condition. The filter of the AC in question had been cleaned on 17.07.2019 and 03.09.2019. The software of the AC has been updated and the AC was working perfectly and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, complainant has purchased the air conditioner in question from the OP no.1.

14.           As per the version of complainant, the air conditioner in question is having cooling problem and in this regard he has made many complaints to the OPs have but OPs failed to resolve the problem from the AC. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of tax invoice Ex.C3, copy of text messages Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, Ex.C8 to C11, Ex.C16 to Ex.C20, photos of remote of AC and AC Ex.C7 and Ex.C12, Ex.C21 Ex.C14 to Ex.C15, copy of call text Ex.C13, copy of weather photo of AC Ex.C22. On the other hand as per version of the OP no.1, it is not liable for warranty of the product as alleged by the complainant. If there is any defect in the air conditioner then it is liability of the manufacturer company i.e. OP no.2 to rectify the defect or to replace the AC in question

15.           The onus to prove its case lies upon the OP no.2 but OP no.2 has miserably failed to prove its case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, it has been proved from the record that the problem had occurred in the replaced AC from the very beginning and the AC is defective one and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant within warranty period. Complainant has been deprived of the basic purpose of purchasing the product. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

16.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 (being manufacturer) to remove the defect of the AC in question free of cost, if it is not removable then to replace the AC in question with new one of the same make, model and same price which was purchased by the complainant.  However, it is hereby made clear if the AC of the same make and model is not available with the OP, then the OP will return the cost of the AC i.e. Rs.42,500/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3300/- for the litigation expense. However, complainant is directed to handover the old AC to the OP no.2. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.11.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member

Sushma

Stenographer