Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/517

Devinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pardeep Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    CC No: 517 of 24.07.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 25.03.2015

                                                                                                                   

Devinder Singh aged 16 years minor s/o Sh.Inderjit Singh, resident of Pipal Chowk, 33 Feet Road, Ludhiana, through his father and next friend Inderjit Singh.

..…Complainant

Versus 

1. Pardeep Electronics, Daba Chowk to Kwality Chowk, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana-141003, through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory.

2. Electrolux, PE Electronics Ltd., North Region, 248, Ist Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-4, Gurgaon-122001, through its Regional Head.

 

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.S.P.Garg, Member

                   Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Jarnail Singh, proxy counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Vikram Monga, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.  

                   

                        ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Devinder Singh aged 16 years minor s/o Sh.Inderjit Singh, resident of Pipal Chowk, 33 Feet Road, Ludhiana, through his father and next friend Inderjit Singh (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Pardeep Electronics, Daba Chowk to Kwality Chowk, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to replace the AC with a new one, to pay Rs.2.00 lac as compensation due to the harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant, to pay legal expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to pay Rs.22,000/- as counsel fee to the complainant alongwith any other additional or alternative relief.  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased one 1.5 Tone Split AC manufacture by OP2 from OP1, vide invoice dated 4.7.13 for Rs.25,500/-. After the installation of AC, when the complainant started using the same, the same was not functioning properly, the same was not giving cooling and only blower used to be run and despite the functioning of AC for a long period, there was no cooling in the room. The complainant went to OP1 and apprised him about the problem, who advised the complainant to lodge a complaint with the company. Accordingly the complainant lodged a complaint bearing no.LUT50712300029 dated 5.7.13 and one engineer was sent by the OPs, who checked the AC and found that the AC is suffering from problem and assured to come again to resolve the problem, but the problem was not resolved. Thereafter complainant lodged so many complaints on different dates, but despite that the problem was not resolved by the complainant. Further alleged that it seems that there was manufacturing defect in the AC and the OPs have sold defective AC to the complainant. Since the AC developed defect during the guarantee period, so the OPs were liable to replace the AC with a new one. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint against the answering OP is not maintainable; the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the parties; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against OP1. On merits, submitted that the OP1 had sold out the said product as per the guidelines of the OP2. In case any problem arose in the product, then the complainant is at liberty to approach the manufacturer of the product. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Further denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OP1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OP2, through registered post on 14.10.14. But no report was received. As such, after expiry of 30 days waiting period, OP2 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 18.11.14.

5.                In order to prove his case, Ld. counsel for complainant has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh S/o Bishan Singh, resident of Pipal Chowk, 33 Feet Road, Ludhiana farther and next friend of complainant Devinder Singh Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated, as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record document Ex.C1. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Pardeep Kumar Proprietor of Pardeep Electronics, Daba Chowk to Kwality Chow, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement.

6.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for both the parties and have also perused the entire record before us.

7.                It is proved fact on record that complainant purchased one Split AC 1.5 Tone manufactured by OP2 from OP1, vide invoice no.2683 dated 4.7.13 for Rs.25,500/-. The said AC was not working properly and giving the required cooling. Thereafter the complainant approached OPs time and again, but the OPs failed to resolve the problem occurred in the AC, despite their best efforts. Further the complainant has claimed the replacement of the AC or refund of the amount. However, the perusal of the record reveals that complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion from which, it can be presumed that the said AC is suffered from any manufacturing defect. Until and unless the expert opinion is not obtained, it cannot be said that product is suffering from any manufacturing defect. So, the complainant is not entitled for replacement or refund of the amount. However, it is the obligation of the OPs to provide maintenance to the complainant, during the warrant period. But the OPs failed to do so. As such, Ops are found to be deficient in their services.

8.                Sequel to the above, discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to carry out the necessary repair in the AC of the complainant by repairing or replacing the defective parts without any cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. In case, it is found that the said AC of the complainant is not repairable, the OPs are directed to replace the AC of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternate to refund the amount of the AC to the complainant, as per the Retail Invoice i.e. Rs.25,500/-. Further Ops are directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

          (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

          Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:25.03.2015 

Hardeep Singh