Haryana

Kurukshetra

08/2018

Balwinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neelkhant - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep budhwar

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.08 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.01.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 30.04.2019.

 

Balvinder S/o Sh. Amar Nath, R/o Vashisht Colony, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Neelkanth Enterprises, near Neelkanth Petrol Pump, NH No.1 Karnal Road, Pipli, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.
2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.15, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida- 201805, Uttar Pardesh.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Pardeep Budhwar, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for Opposite party No.2.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Balvinder against Neelkanth Enterprises & another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased an air conditioner LSA5NP3A1 in cash vide bill No.NED/15-16/0330 dated 8.3.2016 for a sum of Rs.29,500/- from opposite party no.1 which is manufactured by op no.2 and the air conditioner is in warrantee period. It is further alleged that complainant started facing problem regarding no cooling, huge noise and other problems fully disclosed to the ops time to time from the date of purchase of air conditioner. That the complainant approached the op no.1 to remove/ rectify the defect and op no.1 assured the complainant to resolve the problem. The representatives of the company visited to the house of complainant and resolved the matter but the problem was not rectified and air conditioner again started giving problems. The complainant faced the problems in the air conditioner five times. The ops assured the complainant that they will replace the air conditioner with new one, but all in vain. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to replace the defective AC with a new one or in alternate to refund Rs.29,500/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party no.1 failed to appear and was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant purchased the said air conditioner on 8.3.2016 but it is wrong and denied that the said AC is in warranty period. In fact, the warrantee of an AC consists warrantee of the complete AC for one year + 4 years warrantee of the compressor only. The air conditioner so purchased by the complainant was a brand new defect free air conditioner and the same is being used by complainant as per his requirements. The complainant had lodged his first complaint on 5.10.2016 and the said call was closed just after due service of the AC. The complainant lodged his second complaint with the answering op no.2 on 11.9.2017 and the service engineer who visited the premises of complainant found that the gas has become very less and he changed the gas in the said AC and made the same in perfect working condition. It is further submitted that it is wrong and denied that complainant faced problems in the AC five times. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             It is proved on record that complainant purchased the air conditioner in question from opposite party no.1 on 8.3.2016 for a sum of Rs.29,500/- as is evident from copy of invoice Ex.C1. The AC in question is manufactured by op no.2. There is nothing on file to substantiate the plea of op no.2 that AC is in perfect working condition. The op no.2 has not placed on file any document/ report of service engineer in this regard. The compressor is having five years warrantee and is main part of the AC, the working of AC depends upon the compressor. So, it cannot be said that there is no defect in the air conditioner and not making of the same defect free despite complaints of complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops.

8.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the air conditioner with a new one of same make and model within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the same make and model of AC is not available, then the ops shall refund the price of the AC in question i.e. Rs.29,500/- to the complainant within said period, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 30.4.2019.    

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.