BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.355 of 2015

Date of Instt. 20.08.2015

Date of Decision :03.05.2016

Rajinder Singh Diwan aged about 29 years son of Amarjit Singh C/o Diwan Dental Clinic, Sethi Complex, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Onida, MIRC Electronics Ltd., Onida House, G-1, M.I.D.C Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093 through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2. M/s Lucky Electronics Authorized Dealer of electronics and electrical goods, Ladhewali Road, Near Railway Crossing, Jalandhar through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.MS Parmar Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Rajneesh Khanna Adv., counsel for the OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased Split Air Conditioner make Onida from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1 on 11.7.2014 vide invoice No.714 dated 11.7.2014 for Rs.34,000/- with warranty of one year. The complainant submitted that the said AC started giving problem as it did not gave proper cooling as the compressor of the said AC does not work properly due to strong vibration problem. Complainant lodged so many complaints in this regard. The complaints number are 15051086381284, 15041086380625 and engineer of the OP visited the clinic of the complainant where the aforesaid AC installed and made certain repair work but after some time again the AC stop giving cooling and also started giving problem of vibration. The complainant again made complaints but nobody turned-up to repair the AC. As a result of which, the complainant has to loss so many regular patient, as such complainant suffered financial loss. Complainant further submitted that the AC has problems of vibration, leakage of water and he made complaint Nos.15071086308 153, 15051086381284, 1507108680964 in May, 2015. The engineer of the OP visited the clinic of the complainant and told that due to vibration in AC, water pipes burst in the AC. As such, the compressor of the said AC was not working properly. He made repair in the AC but problems remained the same. Even on the asking of the OP, the complainant got the warranty of the AC extended for one year on payment of Rs.1850/- on 6.7.2015 and the warranty was extended from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016. Problems in the AC still persisted i.e. leakage and vibration problem and the OP could not remove these problems in the AC nor replace the said AC with new one nor refund the amount of the AC. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for OPs to replace the AC with new one or to refund the amount of the AC. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement pleading that AC sold by the OP No.2 to the complainant under warranty of one year regarding repair of the product and no guaranty on replacement of the product, unless some manufactured defect is pointed out in the product. Whenever, the complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs, the engineer of the OPs visited the dental clinic of the complainant where the aforesaid AC has been installed and found no defect in the said AC and complainant given his consent over the job sheet that the AC is OK. The OPs denied that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1850/- on 6.7.2015 and got warranty period of AC extended from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016. As per job sheets dated 5.7.2015, 3.10.2014 and 22.7.2015, the AC of the complainant is OK and he was satisfied with the product performance and repair done. So, AC is working properly. There is no defect in the AC and the OP did the repair work of the AC as and when reported by the complainant. The OPs denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OP/A and EX.OP/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Split Air Conditioner make Onida from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1 on 11.7.2014 vide invoice Ex.C1 for Rs.34,000/- with warranty of one year. The complainant submitted that the said AC started giving problem as it did not gave proper cooling as the compressor of the said AC does not work properly due to strong vibration problem. Complainant further submitted that he lodged so many complaints in this regard. The complaints number are 15051086381284, 15041086380625 and engineer of the OP visited the clinic of the complainant where the aforesaid AC installed and made certain repair work but after some time again the AC stop giving cooling and also started giving problem of vibration. The complainant again made complaints but nobody turned-up to repair the AC. As a result of which, the complainant has to loss so many regular patient and as such complainant suffered financial loss. Complainant further submitted that the AC has problems of vibration, leakage of water and he made complaint Nos.15071086308153, 15051086381284, 1507108680964 in May, 2015. The engineer of the OP visited the clinic of the complainant and told that due to vibration in AC, water pipes burst in the AC. As such, the compressor of the said AC was not working properly. He made repair in the AC but problems remained the same. Even on the asking of the OP, the complainant got the warranty of the AC extended for one year on payment of Rs.1850/- on 6.7.2015 and the warranty was extended from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016 Ex.C2. Problems in the AC still persisted i.e. leakage and vibration problem and the OP could not remove these problems in the AC nor replace the said AC with new one nor refund the amount of the AC. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

7. Whereas, the case of the OPs is that AC sold by the OP No.2 to the complainant under warranty of one year regarding repair of the product and no guaranty on replacement of the product. Unless some manufactured defect is pointed out in the product. Whenever, the complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs, the engineer of the OPs visited the dental clinic of the complainant where the aforesaid AC has been installed and found no defect in the said AC and complainant gave his consent over the job sheet that the AC is OK as is evident from the job sheet dated 3.10.2014 Ex.R3, dated 5.7.2015 Ex.R2 and dated 22.7.2015 Ex.R4. The OPs further denied that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1850/- on 6.7.2015 and got warranty period of AC extended from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that as per job sheets dated 5.7.2015 Ex.R2, 3.10.2014 Es.R3 and 22.7.2015 Ex.R4 respectively fully proved that the AC of the complainant is OK and he was satisfied with the product performance and repair done. All these job sheets bears signature of the complainant. So, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that AC is working properly. There is no defect in the AC and the OP did the repair work of the AC as and when reported by the complainant. Therefore, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased aforesaid Split Air Conditioner make Onida from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1 and got installed the same from OP No.2 in his clinic on 11.7.2014 as per invoice Ex.C1. The complainant submitted that the said AC started giving problem of vibration and leakage of water and was not giving proper cooling. The complainant lodged complaints with the OPs. As per job sheet produced by the OP dated 5.7.2015 Ex.R2, 3.10.2014 Es.R3 and 22.7.2015 Ex.R4, the OP repaired the AC of the complainant and the AC was made OK. The complainant/his representative signed these job sheets by stating that he is satisfied with the product performance and repair done. The complainant submitted that the said AC is still giving problem of vibration, leakage of water and improper cooling. However, the complainant could not produce any evidence to prove that the AC has manufacturing defect which is beyond repairs because all the job sheets duly signed by the complainant/his representative Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 fully proved that the AC of the complainant was fully repaired by the OP and was made OK i.e. fully functional and he was satisfied with the performance of the product and the repair done by the OP. The complainant also got warranty of the AC extended from the service centre i.e. Adonis Electronics Pvt Ltd, Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar from 11.7.2015 to 10.7.2016 vide document Ex.C2. As complainant could not point out any manufacturing defect which is beyond repairs, in the AC. However, the OPs/their service centre are liable to make the AC of the complainant fully functional during warranty period/extended warranty period. Therefore, it is ordered that if there is any defect in the AC of the complainant, the OPs are liable to repair the same and make the AC of the complainant fully functional.

9. Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the Ops that if there is any defect or problem in the AC of the complainant, the same should be repaired without charging any amount from the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant within the warranty period. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

03.05.2016 Member Member President