DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 251 of 21.6.2016
Decided on: 18.5.2017
Mohinder Singh Nagi R/o 412/9, Krishna Basti, Samana District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. NIXON Electronics (Dealer of Lloyd Electronics & Engineering Ltd), Post Office Road, Samana District Patiala through its Manager/Proprietor.
2. Lloyd Electronics & Engineering LTD , Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalka Ji New Delhi 110019 through its MD/Chairman/CEO
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Bikram Jit Singh, Authorized representative
of the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-partre.
Sh.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate, counsel
for Opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Mohinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund the price of the AC or to give new AC of the same price.
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To payRs.2500/- as litigation expenses or
- To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased an A.C. make Llyod 1.5 ton split , for an amount of Rs.25,800/- vide bill no.13836 dated 20.6.2015 from Op no.1, manufactured by Op no.2 with a warranty of one year after its installation. The AC was installed on 22.6.2015. It is averred that from the date of installation of the AC, it started creating problem of producing noise in it. He approached OP no.2 through OP no.1 for the rectification of the problem. The engineers of OP no.2 repaired the A.C. for about six times but the problem could not be solved. He also sent e-mail vide complaint No.LEEL071115621544 dated 7.11.2015 and complaint No.LEEL210516481723 dated 21.56.2016 regarding the problem of the AC but every time the engineers of the company tried to rectify the problem but could not do so. He also requested OP no.2 through OP no.1 for the replacement of the A.C. with new one but the OPs did not pay any heed to his request. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs for which he is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment.
3. In the written version filed by OP no.2, it is stated that the warranty of the product expired on 19.6.2016 and the present complaint has been filed after the warranty period. On receipt of the complaints regarding mal functioning of the AC, the technical team of the company visited twice to check the AC in question but did not find any defect in the same. It is alleged that there is no defect whatsoever in the AC.The OP company is not deficient in rendering the service and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, the OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA, alongwith documents Exs.C1 & C2 and closed his evidence.
The ld.counsel for OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Gajender Bhargava, Asstt.Manager of Lloyd Electric. Ex.OPA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed evidence of OP No.2.
5. We have heard the representative of the complainant, the ld. counsel for OP no.2, gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 20.6.2015, Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant purchased the A.C. in question from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.25,800/- The grievance of the complainant is that the A.C. in question was giving problem from the first day of its installation. Inspite of repeated repairs by the engineer / mechanic of the company, the defect still persists.
7. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for OP no.2 argued that on receipt of complaint on 7.11.2015, from the complainant, the engineer of OP no.2 visited the house of the complainant on 8.11.2015, and on checking the A.C. it was found OK, as is evident from copy of job sheet, Ex.OP1. Thereafter, complainant complained on 21.5.2016 about noise in the said A.C. The complaint was attended on 25.5.2016 and after checking the A.C. the same was again found OK as is evident from the job sheet Ex.OP3. On 20.6.2016, the service centre again received a complaint regarding noise in the A.C. in question. On 21.6.2016, the engineer of OP no.2 has gone to the house of the complainant to check the A.C. but the complainant did not allow the said engineer to enter his house and to inspect the A.C.
8. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as explained above, the prayer made by the complainant for replacement of the A.C. cannot be accepted. However, the contention of the complainant that A.C. in question has been creating noise from the date of its installation and it still persists, cannot be ignored. In the documents pertaining to warranty, Ex.OP4, it is categorically mentioned that “ warranty shall be valid only for the period of one year from the date of purchase”. Admittedly, A.C. in question was purchased by the complainant on 20.6.2015 and he made a complaint on 7.11.2015 regarding noise in the A.C. i.e. within the period of warranty. As such, OP no.2 being the manufacturer is liable to rectify the defect(s) of the A.C. in question, either by repairing or by replacing the defective part(s). Accordingly, we dispose of the complaint against OP no.2 with a direction to it to send its engineer, immediately, to the house of the complainant , to rectify the defect(s) of the A.C.in question, either by repairing or by replacing the defective part(s) free of cost as per warranty terms and conditions and shall give an extended warranty of one year with respect to the replaced part(s), if any, from the date of replacement. The complainant is also directed to allow the engineer of OP No.2 to inspect the A.C. in question. OP no.1, being a seller, has no role to play, for the repair of the A.C. Even otherwise neither any specific allegation has been leveled against it nor it has been proved. Therefore, the complaint filed against it, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 18.5.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
