BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.255 of 2016

Date of Instt. 14.06.2016

Date of Decision :11.04.2017

Sudesh Sondhi W/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan Aged about 65 years R/o NC 218, Kot Kishan Chand, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Onida MIRC Electronic Ltd., Onida House, G-1, MIDC Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093.

2. Onida Service Centre, at 163, Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar through its Manager/concerned person. .........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Ravish Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Khana, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein stated that she purchased a new Onida Air Conditioner model number S183SGC alongwith AC Stabilizer 4KV from the dealer of OP on 25.06.2015 for amounting to Rs.30,500/- vide invoice No.R-462. Copy of the bill is attached. The AC was working nicely for two months after its installation. Then the complainant did not use the same as the weather had been turned pleasant in the month of September end or October start. In this season of summer, when complainant started the AC, then she faced some cooling problem. AC was not cooling the room of complainant. On 20.05.2016, complainant registered a complaint to the OP No.2 and they had given the complaint No.1605/0863811219 to the complainant. The mechanic of the OP visited the place and checked the AC of the complainant. He also noticed the cooling problem and tried to remove the same. The AC started cooling at that time. But after few days the same problem was faced by the complainant. The complainant again called the OP on 04.06.2016 and complaint No.1606/086380188 was given to the complainant. No response to this complaint was given by the OP. The complainant again called on 06.06.2016 to the OP. At this time they forwarded the same to some Parteek, then Parteek forwarded the same to the Naveen at his Mobile No.98889-04209, Naveen forwarded the same to some Varinder Mago at his Mobile No.98889-04255. The complainant talked to all these persons of OP but no one entertained the complaint of the complainant. Till date the AC is not working and just remained a wall hanging piece. The complainant requested the OP many times for repairing/rectifying the problem in AC but OP is not showing any interest and paid no heed to the request of the complainant even the AC is still in guarantee period. The complainant is an old lady and suffers of many old age disease and doctors have also recommended her for cool atmosphere. The non availability of facility even after spending a huge amount is putting an ill effect on the health of the complainant. The malafide intention and irresponsible behaviour of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on its parts and it results into mental agony, harassment as well as health loss to the complainant due to defective services on the part of OPs for which the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant and accordingly the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OP be directed to replace the AC of the complainant or to refund the paid amount to the complainant and also compensate the complainant by making the payment to the tune of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.20,000/- for the cost of litigation.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties who filed a reply and contested the same by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that the present complaint is nothing but the bundle of lies and the same has been filed just in order to harass humiliate the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased a new Onida AC and also admitted that the Mechanic of the OP visited the place and check the AC of the complainant and submitted a report after checking that the AC of the complainant is in a very good working condition and there was no problem of any kind in said AC of the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and same may be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith Retail Invoice dated 25.06.2015 Ex.C1 and closed the evidence of the complainant.

4. Similarly, Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/1 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective party and also gone through the file very minutely.

6. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased new Onida AC alongwith Stabilizer from OP on 25.06.2015 for amounting to Rs.30,500/- and copy of the bill placed on the file by the complainant Ex.C1 and the other allegations of the complainant are that there is a major defect in the AC and it was not given proper cooling and to this effect the complaint was made to the OP on 20.05.2016 and complaint No.1605/0863811219 was given to the complainant and Mechanic of the OP visited the place of the complainant and check the AC and repaired the same but after few days it was again giving problem and complainant again made a complaint on 04.06.2016 but the said complaint was not attended by the OP properly till today and AC is remained a wall hanging piece because it is not working properly.

7. No doubt the allegation in regard to occurring a cooling problem in the AC is not denied by the OP, if denied then it is the duty of the complainant to establish the defect but when the OP themselves in written statement in para No.4, on merits admitted that the mechanic of OP visited the place and check the AC of the complainant, if any mechanic/engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant for checking of the AC and then a duty casted upon the OP to examine the said mechanic/engineer, to prove that there is no mechanically defect in the AC but for the best known reason the OP has not examined the said mechanic/engineer who visited the house of the complainant for repairing the AC rather the OP has examined one Varinder Maggo, Authorized Representative who is not technical person if so then how he can tell whether there is any defect in the AC or not. For the on going reason, it is established that there is a still defect in the AC of the complainant which is required to be rectified by the OP as the AC is not working proper and accordingly we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief.

8. In the light of above detailed discussion, we find that the complainant has able to establish the allegations made in the complaint and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to rectify the defect in the AC by sending mechanic/engineer at the house of the complainant and further OPs are directed to make payment of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment to the complainant and also pay litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

11.04.2017 Member President