Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/103

Ritu Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Gill Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Bhanot

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 103 of 23.10.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    07.03.2019

 

Ritu Jain, aged about 30 years, wife of Sh. Arvind Jain, resident of Shop No.2271, Phool Chakar Bazar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Proprietor of Gill Enterprises, Civil Hospital Road, Rupnagar, District Rupnagar  
2. The Manager, Mitsubishi Electrical India Pvt. Limited, 2^nd Floor, Tower A & B DLF Cyber Green, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 3, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002- India.  

           ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Sachin Bhanot, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Inderpal Vohra, Advocate. counsel for O.P. No.1

Sh. Abhishek Jhamb, Advocate, counsel for O.P. No.2 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1. Smt. Ritu Jain, wife of Sh. Arvind Jain, resident of Shop No.2271, Phool Chakar Bazar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through her counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2  to return back the value amount of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs.47,000/-; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony harassment and emotional distress; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 8.8.2018 the complainant had purchased the Air Conditioner make Mitsubishi      1 ½ Ton Split, 3 Star-2018 Model from O.P. no.1 for a sum of Rs.47,000/-. After six days of its purchase, the Air Conditioner in question started moving automatically without getting any instructions from the remote and its cooling also stopped and she immediately rushed to the shop of O.P. No.1 who did not give any heed to her grievance. Again after two days, she again went to the O.P. No.1 but O.P. No.1 did not bother about her complaint and prolonged the matter by saying that he would send some authorized person who would resolve to her complaint. Thereafter, O.P. No.1 sent an unauthorized person who after checking the AC of complainant told that there is a problem with the Gas of Air Conditioner and same is required to be refilled and secondly, the Air Conditioner has been installed at wrong place and if the same is installed at its correct place then the Air Conditioner would work properly and on the assurance of the unauthorized persons, complainant again got the Air Conditioner installed at the other place on her own expenses and its gas was also got refilled. But till date the problem of the Air Conditioner was not resolved.
3.  On notice, O.P. No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed a written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.1; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has filed this complaint only to harass and humiliate the OP No.1. On merits, he stated that the complainant had purchased the Air Conditioner from the OP No.1 and the said Air Conditioner installed in the house of complainant. On 3.9.2018, the complainant had made the complaint and then the technicians of the O.P. No.2. visited the premises of the complainant and checked the Air Conditioner and found that Air Conditioner was working fine but the Air Conditioner was installed at the wrong place. Technician had informed the same to the complainant and the team had reinstalled the Air Conditioner to the right place but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet for the work done by the OP No.2. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On notice, O.P. No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; that the O.P. No.2 is the company when deals with the electronic goods and had several dealers throughout Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, which were selling their products; that the present complaint filed by the complainant is with malafide intention to harass the OP NO.2; that there is no iota of evidence of any truth and all the allegations made by the complainant are false and baseless; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.2. On merits, it stated that the complainant had approached the O.P. No.1 for purchase of Air Conditioner and purchased the same of Mitsubishi Electric make. Complainant had never made any complaint with company call centre on toll free number except on 3.9.2018. Technician team visited their premises and checked the same and found the air conditioner working fine but the air conditioner was installed at the wrong place and they had informed the same to the complainant and their team had reinstalled the air conditioner to the other place but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet for the work done by the technician of OP No.2. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 
5. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Surinderjit Kaur wife of Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Surjit Prasad, Assistant Manager Service Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B & Ex.OP2/C and closed the evidence. 
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. Complainant counsel Sh. Sachin Bhanot, argued that complainant Ritu Jain purchased one Air Conditioner make Mitsubishi, 1 ½ ton split, 3 Star, 2018 model against a sum of Rs.47,000/- from OP No.1. After purchase O.Ps. installed at the premises of the complainant but there was cooling. Complainant informed the O.Ps. many times that the Air Conditioner was not working properly and one employee of the O.Ps. visited the site who suggested the charge of place of outdoor unit. Being not fitted at the proper place that was changed again but without any result.  Complaint was lodged on 3.9.2018 thereafter complainant requested so times to the O.Ps. through phone/message but all in vain. Lastly relied upon this complaint with the prayer to refund of Rs.47,000/- with cost along with compensation.
8. Sh. Inderpal Vohra, counsel for OP No.1 and Sh.Abhishek Jhamb, counsel for OP No.2 argued in the light of documentary evidence on file and in consonance to the reply. Their request is that OP No.1 is duty bound being sale agent to sell the original piece of Mitusbishi if any default is found either the set is not of Mitsubishi or is duplicate then he is responsible. So far the O.P. No.2 is concerned i.e. the manufacturer, if the engineer gives his opinion qua the manufacturing defect then OP No.2 is responsible. Both the counsel prayed that no such deficiency has been on placed the file qua the functioning. Rather the outdoor unit was placed in narrow space that was changed as complainant has small shop where the unit is fitted. The unit has been providing the required cooling and no deficiency/expert opinion has come on the file. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
9. Complainant Ritu Jain is the resident of Ropar District and she purchased the Air Conditioner from OP No.1, whose shop is in the Ropar City. The purchase bill is Ex.C1. The purchase date is 8.8.2018 and present complaint has been preferred in the month of October 2018. So, it is a consumer dispute, complaint is maintainable and this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
10. Coming to the fact of deficiency whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. She pleaded the purchase date is 8.8.2018 and she purchased a 1 ½ ton split Air Conditioner. Thereafter in para No.7, complainant pleaded that she had complained qua the complaint dated 3.9.2018 then on 18.9.2018. Despite this there is no recital qua the date. She tendered her sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A which is in consonance to the complaint. Ex.C2 notice, Ex.C3 sealed envelop Ex.C4 is postal receipts then Ex.C5 photocopy of the message dated 3.9.2018. Again at the bottom of this document there is recital is noted below:-

“Dear Customer.

Your request NO.CHD-18-09-0000008 has been closed. MEICMC”

11.  Beside this there is no document on the file by way of additional evidence. Complainant has placed on file one another affidavit showing details of calls of Gill Enterprises which are of different dates, which proves the complainant approached the O.ps. through phone a numbers of time.
12. After appreciating the documentary evidence as well as the arguments advanced as such no expert opinion has come on the file qua the non functioning of the Air Conditioner, but at the same time firstly complainant alleged the change of place of outdoor unit which is not denied by the O.ps. Then complainant has been able to prove that the complainant had made a number of requests through phone calls history. Complainant lodged the complaint which was entertained by the O.Ps. and complaint of complainant dated 3.9.2018 was closed without mentioning the date. In this way, this forum has come to the conclusion that complainant is not satisfied with the service of the purchased unit i.e. the Air Conditioner as well as the services rendered by the O.Ps. Rather it proves she had to approach the O.Ps. several times to get the services. So to some extent qua the functioning of the Air Conditioner deficiency is apparent which requires necessary repairs.
13. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent that on receipt of copy of this order O.Ps. will reach at the premises of the complainant within 45 days and to do the necessary needful/repairs. In case the engineer of the O.Ps. come to the conclusion that the functioning of the spilt Air Conditioner is improper then recommend for its replacement as the complaint is within warranty. The complaint stands partly dismissed as the prayer of the complainant for refund of Rs.47,000/- is declined. However, under the peculiar circumstances, parties are left to bear their own cost.  
14.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.07.03.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER