Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/134

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OWNER J.S. ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

Joginder Singh

26 May 2017

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        134

Date of Institution :  21.04.2017

Date of Decision :     26.05.2017

Paramjit Singh aged about 43 years s/o Karnail Singh r/o Prem Nagar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                                              .....Complainant

Versus

1. Proprietor J S Electronics, Circular Road, Near Axis Bank, Faridkot.
2. Incharge Voltas AC Service Centre, Near Cremation Ground, Mahatma Gandhi School, Faridkot.

                                    ....Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Joginder Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Ops Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to repair the defective air conditioner and for also directing Ops to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one  1 ½ ton Air Conditioner make Voltas from OP-1 for Rs.22,000/-vide bill no.852 dated 5.07.2012. At the time of purchasing the said article, OP-1 gave 5 years warranty for compressor and its related parts which are meant to provide cool air and one year warranty for other parts. It is further submitted that said air conditioner worked properly and gave sufficient cooling for two years, but thereafter, in the third year, its cooling effect was reduced and on complaint by complainant, employees of service centre told complainant that pipes through which gas reaches the compressor has leaked and then complainant got them repaired. Next year, same problem persisted again and on complaint by complainant employees of OP-2 after checking his air conditioner told him that pipes of air conditioner have been damaged and need to be replaced which would cost heavily.  Complainant requested that air conditioner in question is still under warranty and he is entitled to get free repairs, but they did not pay any heed to his requests and refused to give effective services. Complainant made many requests to Ops to repair the same, but all his efforts to get it repaired bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.04.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                             Despite effective service of notice issued by Forum to Ops through Process Server, no body appeared in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel to defend the case. It is made out that Ops are not interested in contesting the same and therefore, vide order dated 15.05.2017, both OP-1 and OP-2 were proceeded against exparte.     

5                                                Complainant Party was given proper opportunity to lead evidence to prove the pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                           As there is no rebuttal from Ops side, therefore, we have heard the ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced on record.

7                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased one  1 ½ ton Air Conditioner make Voltas from OP-1 for Rs.22,000/-vide bill no.852 dated 5.07.2012 and at the time of purchase, OP-1 gave 5 years warranty for compressor and its related parts which are meant to provide cool air and one year warranty for other parts. It is further submitted that said air conditioner worked properly and gave sufficient cooling for two years, but thereafter, in the third year, its cooling effect was reduced and on complaint by complainant, employees of service centre of OPs told complainant that pipes through which gas reaches the compressor has leaked and then complainant got them repaired. Next year, same problem persisted again and on complaint by complainant, employees of OP-2 after checking his air conditioner told him that pipes of air conditioner have been damaged and need to be replaced which would cost heavily. Complainant requested that air conditioner in question is still under warranty and he is entitled to get free repairs, but they did not pay any heed to his requests and refused to give effective services. Repeated requests made by complainant to get it repaired bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service.  He has prayed for accepting the complaint.

8                                         We have anxiously considered the contentions of complainant in the light of evidence on record. From the perusal of bill Ex C-2, it is clear that complainant purchased the said air conditioner from Ops against proper bill for Rs.22,000/- on 5.07.2012 and there is no doubt that complainant is the consumer of Ops. Complainant has rightly stated in his pleadings that said air conditioner worked properly for two years and difficulty in cooling persisted in third year and thereafter. Action of Ops in not giving free repair services to a product which is still covered under warranty period and in demanding repair charges amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. They are bound to give effective repairs within warranty period. Their refusal to render effective services indicates that they have been deficient in giving proper services up to the satisfaction of complainant.

 9                              From the  above discussion and keeping in view the documents produced by complainant, This Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to render effective services to the air conditioner and replace the defective parts if any up to the entire satisfaction of complainant and are further directed to give Rs.2000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 26.05.2017

             

Member                          President

                                                   (P Singla)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)