Punjab

Sangrur

CC/42/2019

Gurlal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Electro World - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S.Sidhu

04 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR, PUNJAB.

          Complaint Case No       : CC/42/2019

                                              Date of Institution                   : 01.02.2019

          Date of Decision            : 04.07.2024

Gurlal Singh son of Nachattar Singh, resident of village Chaubas Jakhepal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.     

                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                              Versus

1. Om Electro World, Patiala Road, Sangrur, through its proprietor Dimple (Authorized Dealer of Blue Star A.C. Company).
2. Khurana Electronics, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur (Authorised Service Centre of Blue Star India), through its Manager.
3. Blue Star India, Head Office: Kasturi Building, Mohan Tea Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, through its Managing Director.

                                                                                         ...Opposite Parties.

Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present:       Sh. Harwinder Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. N.S. Sahni counsel for opposite party No. 1.

                   Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill                    : President

2. Smt. Sarita Garg                           : Member
3. Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh                    : Member   

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant namely Gurlal Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act against Om Electro World & othres (herein after referred as opposite parties).

2.                The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that on 28.5.2018 the complainant purchased 1.5 Ton Split Air Conditioner of Blue Star Company having Model No. 5HW18SBTU-BI & BO for a total sale consideration of Rs. 36,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 and at the time of purchase of said Air Conditioner the opposite party No. 1 gave guaranty/warranty of 1 year to the complainant and also gave assurance to the complainant that if any problem occurred within the period of warranty, then they will remove the defect free of cost or replace the defective Air Conditioner with new one. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 sent his employee who installed/fitted the Air Conditioner and also sent bill No. VAT-36 No. OEW/1819/0134 dated 28.5.2018 of the Air Conditioner with him, who handed over the same to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant purchased the above said Air Conditioner from opposite party No. 1 through Army Canteen (at CDS Rate), as the complainant is employed in India Army and now posted at Gurugram. It is alleged that in the month of June 2018, the said Air Conditioner was auto switched off after 3/4 hours, then the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 1 who told the complainant to register the complaint on the toll free No. 1800-209-1177 of the opposite party No. 3. Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint on the toll free number and the executive of the opposite party No. 3 registered the same vide complaint/Ticket No. B1806090920 and gave assurance to the complainant that their company mechanic will visit the house of the complainant for the removal of said defect. Thereafter, the mechanic of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and removed the said defect of the Air Conditioner in question. It is further alleged that in the month of July, 2018, the said Air Conditioner was giving the same problem and complainant again registered a complaint on the said toll free number and the executive of the company registered the same vide complaint/ticket No. B1807260808 and gave assurance to the complainant that their company mechanic will visit the house of the complainant for the removal of said defect and the mechanic of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and removed the said defect of the Air Conditioner in question and gave assurance that this problem will not happen again in future. It is further alleged that in the month of August, 2018, the said Air Conditioner was giving the same problem and complainant again registered a complaint on the said toll free number and the executive of the company registered the same vide complaint/ticket No. B1808130157 and gave assurance to the complainant that their company mechanic will visit the house of the complainant for the removal of said defect and the mechanic of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and removed the said defect of the Air Conditioner in question and gave assurance that this problem will not happen again in future. It is further alleged that after the passing of about 15 days in the month of September 2018, the said Air Conditioner was giving the same problem and complainant again registered a complaint on the said toll free number and the executive of the company registered the same vide complaint/ticket No. B1809150832 and gave assurance to the complainant that their company mechanic will visit the house of the complainant for the removal of said defect and the mechanic of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and removed the said defect of the Air Conditioner and thoroughly checked the Air Conditioner and told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner and due to this reason the Air Conditioner is giving the same problem again and again. Thereafter, number of requests made by the complainant time and again to the opposite party No. 1 for the removal of said defect, but all in vain. Due to the above said act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony, tension and harassment, as such there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1. The opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the defective Air Conditioner with new one of same model or to refund the price of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs. 36,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  

3.                Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement. It is alleged that the complainant lodged the false complaint with a view to get new AC and on receipt of the complaint representative of the company attended the complaint of the complainant and all the times it was found that the AC was working properly and no defect was found all the times. Whenever, the complaint was attended complainant stated that the AC gives problem only in the night. Even the representatives waited for four to five hours after starting the AC but no defect was found in the said AC, but the complainant time and again lodged the complaints to get the AC replaced with new one and all the times no defect was found and no relay was changed and no compressor was changed and even no gas was refilled. There was no cooling problem and there was no problem of auto cut as alleged by the complainant. It is denied that mechanic of the opposite parties thoroughly checked the Air Conditioner and told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint with cost.

4.                Initially the opposite party No. 2&3 filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action arose and complainant created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant made a false story about the complaints registered to the customer care of the opposite party No. 3 and regarding visit of the executives of the opposite party at his place for the repairs and service of the said product. It is further submitted that on 9.6.2018 the complaint was made by the complainant about the said product and accordingly a ticket No. B1806090920 was allotted to the customer, whereas on the very next day a call was made to the complainant on 10.6.2018, but the complainant did not answer the call and accordingly the complaint was rejected. The customer again placed a call to the customer care centre dated 26.7.2018 of opposite party No. 3 and registered his complaint and a ticket No. B1807260808 was allotted to the customer and when the executive called the complainant on 27.7.2018 the customer again did not answered the call and the executives were unable to attend the complaint and hence the complaint was rejected. It is further submitted that customer again made a complaint and registered it with the customer care on 13.8.2018 and again a ticket number was allocated to the customer i.e. B1808130157 and the said complaint was rejected by the executive of the company as the complaint was pertaining to other area, but the same complainant was forwarded to the specific dealer of the customers area and following the due course the dealer called the customer on 18.8.2018 and after taking to the complainant the dealer planned to visit the complainant the very next day, but on the next day i.e. on 19.08.2018 when the dealer tried calling the complainant to fix the appropriate time to visit the complainant, the complainant one again refused to answer the call made by the dealer and the dealer was constrained to cancel the visit as well as the complaint of the complainant.  It is further submitted that the customer again made a call to the customer care of opposite party No. 3 on 19.3.2019  the complainant again allotted customer ticket No. J1903195296 and when the executives of the opposite party No. 3 called the complainant on 26.3.2019 the customer choose not to answer the call and the complaint was rejected on this ground only. The complainant made various complaints to the opposite party No. 3, but every time when the executives tried calling or reaching the customer every time the customer refuses to attend the call and further refused to give appointment to come at his place for service of the said product and due to this reason the opposite party was constrained to cancel the ticket numbers. Hence, the complaint of the is liable to dismissed with heavy costs.

5.                Later on the opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.10.2022. Further, the opposite party No. 2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.4.2023.

6.                The complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice No. 36 dated 28.5.2018 Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 are the copies of complaint/ticket number made by the complainant.

7.                The opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dimple, Proprietor of opposite party No. 1 as Ex.O.P1/1 and closed the evidence.

8.                The opposite party No. 2 & 3 tendered into evidence copy of Resolution Ex.O.P2&3/1, affidavit of Roshni Rasal Ex.O.P2&3/2 and closed the evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file.

10.              In order to prove his case the complainant alongwith his complaint has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has taken the stand as mentioned in the complaint. He has further placed on record copy of invoice No. 36 dated 28.5.2018 Ex.C-2, which shows that the complainant has purchased Blue Star 5HW18SBTU-BI&BO Split Air Conditioner Indoor 17A23511 Outdoor LQA29602 for an amount of Rs. 36,000/- from the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Om Electro World, Patiala Road, Sangrur, through its proprietor Dimple (Authorized Dealer of Blue Star A.C. Company). The complainant has further placed on record complaints Ex.C-3 made by him to the opposite parties and the for the same Ticket numbers were issued by the opposite parties.

11.              On the other hand, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record affidavit of Dimple, Proprietor of opposite party No. 1 Ex.Op.1/1 vide which she reiterated the averments as mentioned in the written version filed by the opposite party No. 1.

12.              The opposite party No. 2 & 3 have also placed on record affidavit of Roshni Rasal Ex.O.P2&3/2 vide which she relied upon the reply filed by the opposite party no.3.

13.              The allegations of the complainant is that after installation of the AC in question, the said Air Conditioner was giving problem of auto switched off after 3/4 hours and the complainant number of times has made complaints to the opposite parties for the removal of the above said defects and this fact was proved from Ex.C-3 because from the perusal of Ex.C-3 it shows that the complainant made number of complaints to the opposite parties and the opposite parties also issued complaint/ticket numbers in this regard. The another allegation of the complainant is that the executive of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant but failed to redress the grievance of the complainant.

14.              Now the point is that the above said Air Conditioner of the complainant was within the warranty period when the problem was occurred in the Air Conditioner in question because from the very beginning the complainant made complaints to the opposite parties regarding the above said problem in the AC in question which shows from the Ex.C-3 and about the above said problem/defect in the AC in question is very well within the knowledge of the opposite parties because the opposite party No. 2&3 in their written version have submitted that when the executives of the opposite party No. 3 called the complainant the customer choose not to answer the call and the complaint was rejected on this ground only. It is further mentioned in their written version that the complainant made various complaints to the opposite party No. 3, but every time when the executives tried calling or reaching the customer every time the customer refused to attend the call and further refused to give appointment to come at his place for service of the said product and due to this reason the opposite party was constrained to cancel the ticket numbers. However, opposite party no. 1 submitted in the written version that on receipt of the complaint representative of the company attended the complaint of the complainant and all the times it was found that the AC was working properly and no defect was found all the times. Whenever, the complaint was attended complainant stated that the AC gives problem only in the night. Even the representatives waited for four to five hours after starting the AC but no defect was found in the said AC, but the complainant time and again lodged the complaints to get the AC replaced with new one and all the times no defect was found and no relay was changed and no compressor was changed and even no gas was refilled. There was no cooling problem and there was no problem of auto cut as alleged by the complainant. So, we are of the view that the opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite parties have failed to place on record any cogent evidence in order to rebut the allegations of the complainant. Further, the complainant has filed the present complaint to replace the above said AC with brand new AC or refund of sum of Rs. 36,000/-. But to prove the manufacturing defect the complainant has failed to place on record any expert report/opinion of any expert/technician. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that mechanic of the opposite parties ever apprised the complainant that the air conditioner is suffering from the manufacturing defect as mentioned in the complaint by the complainant.  So, the complainant is entitled only for the repair of AC in question free of costs.

15.              As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to repair the above said AC in question of the complainant and to replace the defective parts of AC in question with a new one of the same make and model free of costs. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation.  

16.              This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

17.              The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18.              Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Announced.

 

                                July 04, 2023.

 

        (Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)     (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member           Member                 President