Date of Decision:04.09.2014

First Appeal- 555/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 10.02.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 356/11 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(East), Saini Enclave, New Delhi)

Shri Satpal Chauhan,

D-351 A, Gali No. 12,

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.

                                                                                            ….Appellant

Versus

1. M/s. Fedders Lloyd Corp. Ltd.,

Plot No. 2, Industrial Area,

Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

1. Sh. Kashif Malik,

Prop. Malik Enterprises,

138-B, Gali No. 3,

Sewa Sadan Block, Mandawali,

Delhi-110092.

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member Judicial

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President        

1. In the present appeal, challenge has been made to order dated 10.02.2014 passed by the District Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi whereby the directions have been issued to respondent to make the AC of appellant/complainant functional and replace the deflector (Flab) at the cost of the appellant.  It is further ordered that service of the AC be done within 30 days from the receipt of the order.

1. The appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging therein that he had purchased a split AC 1.5 ton, Model No.19A3G, SR No.16809 for an amount of Rs.19,500/- on 22.04.2011 from the authorized dealer of respondent No.1.  At the time of purchase, he was assured that three free services of AC would be provided.  It is stated that in October, 2011 the respondent No. 2 i.e. dealer/service provider of respondent No. 1, had come to the house of the appellant for providing service of AC.  It is alleged that while performing the job, he had broken the deflector of the AC.  When the appellant had brought the said fact to the notice of service person of respondent No. 2, he had stated that same had earlier being broken from the company and it would be changed in February/March, 2012.  It was alleged that there was also low cooling in the AC and the same was communicated to respondent No. 2 in March, 2012 but the defect was not cured.  With these allegations, the appellant had prayed that the respondents be directed to rectify the defects or replace the AC.

1. The respondents had contested the complaint by filing a reply wherein it was alleged that no guarantee for the plastic part i.e. deflector of the AC was given at any time.  It was alleged that the deflector was also not broken at the hands of the service provider as was alleged.  The same was found already broken when the service person had reached the house of appellant.  It was also alleged that even the appellant did not allow free access to the service engineers who had gone for  the service of AC.

1. Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits in support of their case.  After hearing both the counsels for the parties, the Ld. District Forum has held that the complainant had failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the AC.  However, the District Forum gave the directions to respondent No. 2 as are stated above.

1. The contention of the appellant is that the deflector was broken at the hands of service engineers of respondent No. 2, so the same should be replaced by respondent No. 2.  It is also contended that there was manufacturing defect in AC and respondents be directed to replace the AC.

1. We have heard Counsel for the appellant.

1. It is admitted position that the AC had been purchased on 22.4.2011.   The allegation in writing about breaking of deflector by service engineer of respondent No. 2 was made for the first time vide complainant on 22.3.12 whereas as per appellant it was broken by service person of respondent No. 2 on Oct., 2011.  Had it been broken by service engineer as is alleged why it was informed to respondent No. 2 only on 22.3.12 i.e. after gap of five months.   Further there is affidavit of respondent No. 2 denying that it was broken at the hands of the service person.  There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of respondent No. 2.  The deflector being a plastic part is also not covered under warranty.   The appellant has failed to point out any defect in the AC which can be taken as a manufacturing defect either before the District Forum or before the State Commission.  Only bald allegations are made in this regard.  The deflector is a plastic part of the AC for which there is no warranty.  In these circumstances, respondents can not be ordered to replace the deflector without charging from the appellant.  There are also directions by the District Forum to the respondents to make the AC of the complainant functional.  In these circumstances, no illegality is seen in the impugned order.

1. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.

1. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.