DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.225 of 24-05-2013

Decided on 23-08-2013

Guru Gobind Singh Public School, Maluka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, through its principal aged about 52 years.

........Complainant

Versus

M/s V.K refrigeration & Electric Service Centre, shop No.12, Veer Colony Market, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its partner/prop.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.S.K Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite party: Sh.K.S Brar, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complainant is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act') by the complainant. The brief facts of the complaint are that the water cooler installed in the Guru Gobind Singh Public School has defects in the compressor, some other parts and regarding the gas. The opposite party has charged Rs.5300/- after giving the discount of Rs.500/- after removing the defective parts/compressor and refilled the said water cooler with gas and done necessary job vide bill No.300 dated 28.9.2011. The opposite party assured the complainant that the replaced parts are of the best quality and there is warranty of one year for the same but after the replacement of the compressor, the said water cooler started giving electric shock and many students complained regarding the same. On the receipt of the complaints, the complainant approached the opposite party many times with the complaint of electric shock in the said water cooler. Since the last summer season i.e. April 2012 repeated requests were made to the opposite party to remove the defect of electric shock but it has done nothing and postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. In July 2012, the opposite party has refused to remove the defect or send its mechanic or technician to the school premises. The opposite party asked the complainant to bring the compressor to its shop, for this the complainant has paid Rs.400 to 500 as transportation charges. The complainant handed over the compressor to the opposite party and it promised him to deliver the same within a few days. But thereafter the opposite party asked the complainant to pay Rs.3100/- for the replacement of the compressor, whereas the complainant was being conveyed that the charges would be Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- approximately. The complainant has got served a legal notice dated 10.11.2012 to the opposite party. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite party to replace the compressor with new one; to produce the entire record for the repairs of the compressor alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite party. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the actual and real facts are that it has replaced the defective compressor and some other parts of the water cooler in question as per the wish and requirement of the complainant after getting it checked, the replaced parts are of the best quality and no guarantee as alleged by him was given by the opposite party and the said water cooler has started functioning and there was/is no defect in replaced compressor and parts. Actually, the water pipe that provides water to the water cooler in question has been installed by the complainant directly from the water tanki, as a result of which, the water overflows and falls on the said water cooler and due to this, the electric shock might have occurred. The water taps fitted to the water cooler also prone to the electric shock as the overflowing water falls on the compressor and there is no defect in the replaced compressor or parts. After the replacement of the compressor or parts, no complaint was made by the complainant with the opposite party upto six months. The first complaint was received on 21.4.2012 in the second season and an electrician was sent to check the said water cooler, he found that replaced compressor and parts were all right in all respects. The opposite party advised the complainant to install a float valve that controls water and automatically stop overflow and also advised him that if the water falling over the water cooler in question would not be stopped, it would damaged the water cooler and its parts. The electrician of the opposite party has charged Rs.150/- only as his visiting and checking fee from the complainant but falling of the water did not stop and the complainant again lodged a complaint on 8.8.2012 and an electrician Gurpreet Singh was sent to the school premises, he found falling of water on the body of the said water cooler and compressor, results in electric shock and the same was got repaired/changed from M/s Sukhmani Engineers, Mahavir Dal Hospital Road, Bathinda and they issued the bill dated 10.8.2012 for Rs.3100/- for gas refilling and repair etc. to the complainant but he has not paid the same till date and the said concern is demanding the said bill from the opposite party. The opposite party had duly attended the complaints of the complainant by sending its mechanic or electrician but the defect if any, was due to overflowing and falling of the water on the water cooler. The opposite party never told the complainant that Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- would be charged, rather Rs.150/- was charged by the electrician as his visiting and checking fees.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The compressor of the water cooler of the complainant was replaced by the opposite party vide bill No.300 dated 28.9.2011 after charging the amount of Rs.5300/- and giving the discount of Rs.500/-. At the time of replacement of the compressor, the opposite party assured the complainant that the replaced parts are of the best quality and there is guarantee/warranty of one year for the same but thereafter the said water cooler started giving electric shock. The complainant complained the same to the opposite party. The opposite party asked the complainant to bring the compressor to its shop. The opposite party demanded Rs.3100/- for the replacement of the compressor of the said water cooler, whereas earlier the complainant was conveyed that approximately Rs.400 to 500 would be charged.

6. The opposite party specifically submitted that there is no defect in the said water cooler, after the replacement of the compressor or its parts. If there is any defect regarding the electric shock that is due to the installation of the water pipe directly from the water tanki. The water of the water tanki overflows and falls on the said water cooler resulting in electric shock. The water taps fitted to the water cooler are also prone to the electric shock as the overflowing water falls on the compressor and it became prompt to the electric shock. There is no defect in the replaced compressor or its parts as the complainant has used it for approximately six months and for the first time, he complained regarding the fault of electric shock on 21.4.2012. The opposite party sent its electrician/mechanic to check the said water cooler, he found that the replaced compressor and its parts were properly working and the electric shock was due to the overflowing water on the said water cooler. The opposite party advised the complainant to install a float valve that controls water and automatically stop overflow and also advised him that if the water falling over the water cooler in question is not stopped, it would damage the same and its parts. The electrician/mechanic of the opposite party has charged Rs.150/- only as his visiting and checking fee from the complainant. The complainant again lodged the complaint on 8.8.2012 and an electrician/mechanic Gurpreet Singh was sent to the school premises, he found falling of water on the body of the said water cooler and compressor results in electric shock and the same was got repaired/changed from M/s Sukhmani Engineers, Mahavir Dal Hospital Road, Bathinda and they issued the bill dated 10.8.2012 for Rs.3100/- for gas refilling and repair etc, to the complainant but he has not paid the same till date and the said concern is demanding the said bill from the opposite party.

7. A perusal of invoice No.300 dated 28.9.2011 Ex.C2 shows the compressor replacement charges:-Rs.3800/-; gas charges:-Rs.1500/-; relay:-Rs.200/- capacitor 10 MFD:-Rs.50/-; capacitor 40/6 MFD:-Rs.100/-, overload:- Rs.150/- and the total invoice was prepared for Rs.5800/- and less of old compressor was given Rs.500/-, in this way the amount of Rs.5300/- was charged from the complainant by the opposite party. After using the water cooler approximately 6 months, the problem of falling of water re-occurred and the said water cooler started giving the electric shock. The complainant complained in this regard to the opposite party, its electrician/mechanic visited the premises of the complainant and observed that the water pipe was attached directly with the water tanki and falling of the water on the water cooler, causing electric shock and the water taps fitted with the water cooler are also prone to the electric shock, so he advised the complainant to install a float valve that controls water and automatically stop overflow or fall of the water.

8. The compressor has been replaced by the opposite party. After the replacement of the compressor, it worked for 6 months and thereafter the said water cooler started giving electric shock. As per the version of the opposite party the first complaint was lodged by the complainant on 21.4.2012 i.e. after 6 months from the replacement of the compressor and other parts, meaning thereby the fitting of the compressor and other parts were not done properly as some wires remained uncovered and came in touch with other wires, causing electric shock. In the period of 6 months, the compressor has not been shown to any electrician or mechanic to repair from any other repair shop, meaning thereby at the time of replacement of the compressor and other parts and refilling of the gas, the workmanship was not done properly which caused electric shock. The bill produced by the opposite party vide Ex.OP1/3 dated 10.8.2012 of M/s Sukhmani Engineers includes compressor repair charges, gas charges, relay, O.L.R, 40,60 capacitor, whereas a perusal of Ex.C2 shows that these parts has already been replaced approximately 11 months earlier. If the compressor and other parts were of the best quality and gas was refilled properly, there was no question of getting all these parts damaged in a very short span of time. Moreover the opposite party in its reply has nowhere mentioned that if no guarantee/warranty has been given on the replaced parts, in that case what is the normal life span of the replaced parts with or without warranty.

9. Thus keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as repairs conducted by it are not done properly and the replaced compressor and other parts are also not working properly. The complainant has to approach another repair shop for the replacement and repair of the compressor and other parts, the bill to the tune of Rs.3100/- has been issued by M/s Sukhmani Engineers vide Ex.OP1/3. The complainant got repaired his compressor from M/s Sukhmani Engineers under the compelled circumstances when the opposite party has failed to give him the proper service regarding the said water cooler. However the complainant is liable to pay the repair charges to M/s Sukhmani Engineers as previous repairs was not done by them.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party on all accounts as the opposite party has failed to rectify the defects properly.

11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.

Pronounced in open Forum

23-08-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member