BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Execution No. 23 of 2015
Date of Institution : 11.2.2015
Date of Decision : 23.9.2015
Lieutenant Kuljas Rai Sharma son of Late Sh. Ram Rakha, resident of Ward No. 6, Golden Avenue, Dadwan Road, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur
...Applicant/Complainant
Vs.
Panasonic India Private Limited, SPIC Building, Annexe 6th Floor, No. 88, Mount Road, Gundy, Chennai-600032 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory
M/s. Sound Trading Company, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Proprietor
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Manoj Complex, Shop No. 14/15, Near Aman Palace, Bajri Complex, Dhakki Road, Pathankot (Mobile No. 0186-5080539)
....Respondents/Opp.parties
Application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
-2-
Present : For the applicant: In person
For the respondent: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1. Applicant filed the present application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for execution of the order dated 1.1.2015 passed by this Forum in complaint case No. 91 of 2014 decided on 1.1.2015. The applicant submitted that opposite party No.1 was directed to get the AC of the complainant repaired and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant and also to extend the warranty for three months, so that complainant could check/test its functioning . In case AC does not properly function even after repairs or is not repairable, the opposite party No.1 was directed to replace the AC of the complainant with new one or to refund the amount of AC alongwith interest. Opposite party No.1 was also directed to pay cost of litigation Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. The complainant/applicant submitted that opposite party has not repaired the AC of the complainant and made it fully functional despite so many requests made by the complainant to opposite party No.1. He,therefore, requested that action may kindly be taken against opposite party No.1 u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Opposite parties/respondents have filed written submission in the form of affidavit of Rahul Nagpal, Branch Service Manager of opposite party No.1 who deposed through affidavit that the compliance of the order of this Forum dated 1.1.2015 has been properly made by opposite party No.2 . All the problems in the AC of the complainant were rectified and the AC of the complainant was made fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant. The litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/- were paid to the complainant/applicant as per receipt dated 29.3.2015. The complainant submitted before this Forum that his AC was not properly functioning . Then again the service engineers were sent to the premises of the applicant and they found that the AC was opened by some unauthorized source and dismantled. The vital part of PCB was missing and that was presented by the complainant before this Forum in broken state, which is not possible to get broken while installation. However, as a goodwill gesture the said PCB was replaced with new one by opposite party No.1 without charging any amount from the complainant. However, the original part of PCB in damaged condition has not been returned by the applicant to the respondents and even the complainant has also given certificate in writing dated 8.7.2015 that PCB changed on 8.7.2015. However, on that day power supply by the Electricity Corporation was not there at the applicant's premises, so the working could not be checked on that day. Thereafter service engineers from the respondents went twice to the premises of the applicant but they were not allowed to enter the premises of the applicant. Thereafter written communication was sent to the applicant. Even then the applicant did not allow the service engineers of the opposite party to check the satisfactory working of the AC as the new PCB had already been installed. Thereafter on the directions of this Forum the engineers of the respondents checked the said AC and found all parameters are satisfactory and the AC is in perfect working condition. The room temperature was checked at 16º working of Amperes, working of the outdoor unit was in perfect order. Opposite party produced photographs in this regard. So the AC of the complainant/applicant was handed over to him in perfect order and at present there is no defect or any shortcoming in the working of the AC of the applicant.
3. We have heard the applicant as well as ld. Counsel for the opposite parties alongwith engineers of the opposite party No.1 present in the Forum and have minutely gone through the documents produced on record by the opposite parties i.e. photographs, receipts and the certificate issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
4. The complainant has received the amount of litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- from the opposite parties vide receipt dated 29.3.2015 which is on record and the complainant did not deny this fact. The PCB of the AC of the complainant was also changed by opposite party free of costs as per the certificate duly signed by the complainant himself dated 8.7.2015. However, on that day there was no power supply to the premises of the complainant. The opposite party made the AC of the complainant fully functional . The engineers of the opposite party when visited the premises of the complainant to check the working of the AC of the complainant, the complainant did not allow the service engineers of the opposite parties to check the satisfactory working of the AC as new PCB had already been installed by the opposite parties in the AC of the complainant free of cost. All this shows that the conduct of the complainant/applicant is not fair. Then this Forum ordered the complainant to allow the service engineers of the opposite parties to check the working of the AC of the complainant. Resultantly the service engineers of the opposite parties went to the premises of the complainant and that too in the presence of the complainant/applicant and checked the working of the AC of the complainant/applicant. The AC of the complainant was giving proper cooling i.e. to the extent of even 16.10º C and to the extent of 12º C and all this has been photographed by the service engineers of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant/applicant, as is evident from the photographs that when the temperature of the room of the complainant was being checked the complainant was sitting in that room . All this shows that opposite parties have made the AC of the complainant fully functional.
5. Resultantly we hold that opposite party No.1 has properly complied with the order of this Forum dated 1.1.2015 . As such there is no merit in this execution application filed by the complainant/applicant and the same is hereby dismissed. Papers be consigned to the record room.
23.9.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
