BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 218 of 2017
Date of Institution : 31.8.2017
Date of Decision : 30.1.2018
Om Parkash (aged about 61 years) son of Sh. Karam Chand, resident of Gali No.4, Gobind Nagar, Khanna Colony, Hisar Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Rama Electronics, Old Sabzi Mandi, Sirsa-125055 (Hry.) through its Authorized Person/Proprietor.
2 O-General, AC-Manufacturers, ETA General Pvt. Ltd. Regional Office: 1st Floor, 221, Okhla Phase-3, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ganesh Sethi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rishab Jindal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant has been running a Dairy and confectionary shop in the name and style of “Sachdeva Dairy and Confectionary” near Bus Stand, Hissar Road, Sirsa. The complainant is a heart
patient and he was medically treated by the doctors at G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi in the month of May, 2017 and the stunts were planted. Due to the said operation, the doctor advised to the complainant to keep clean and cool atmosphere around him, for which the complainant was in dire need of Air Conditioner in his shop for relieving from hot temperature. So, the complainant purchased an Air Conditioner (AC) make O-General of 1.5 Ton from opposite party no.1 against the cash price of Rs.48000/- against which the op no.1 issued the cash Bill/Invoice no.4175 dated 27.6.2017 and at the time of purchase of this Air Conditioner, the op no.1 had given full guarantee of one year on any manufacturing defect in the said A.C. and had also given full guarantee of five years of any defect in the compressor. It was assured by the op no.1 that during the period of one year, all the defects of the above said A.C. shall be repaired/removed without any cost. It was also assured that in case of manufacturing defect the above said A.C. shall be got replaced with new one from the company under guarantee period. After purchasing the said A.C., the same was installed at the premise of the complainant by op no.1. It is further averred that op no.1 is selling the products of O-General Manufacturing Company and op no.2 is the manufacturing company. That just after the purchase of the air conditioner, the complainant was stunned to see that there is problem in the AC in question and is not giving cooling and it does not work in any manner. The complainant approached the op no.1 and disclosed the said problems occurred in the air conditioner. The op no.1 sent a mechanic at the shop of complainant who after inspecting the AC, found that there is some mechanical defect and same cannot be repairable and it was told by the mechanic to complainant to contact with op no.1 for the problem. Thereafter, the complainant has made several rounds to the premises of op no.1 and requested either to remove the problem of the said AC or to replace the same with new one but to no effect. That finding no other alternative, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops on 22.7.2017 but of no avail. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply asserting therein that the company provides one year comprehensive warranty and further for years warranty on compressor only and in case any problem occurs, the same would be repaired as per the company policy. The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Consumer Protection Act because the unit in question is used by the complainant for commercial purpose i.e. the same has been installed at the shop of complainant where the same is used to cool down the chest freezers and refrigerator installed by the complainant in his shop and same fact has been duly mentioned in the job sheet dated 21.6.2017 and for this reason the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the AC approached the answering op in the month of July, 2017 and reported low cooling issue. Therefore, the engineer from the company Mr. Jai Singh visited the shop of complainant and checked the unit but no issue was found in the unit and the unit was working fine. Also the engineer found that the unit is used in the shop of the complainant for cooling down the chest freezers and refrigerators which were installed by the complainant for sale of confectionary goods. The engineer also noticed that the area of the shop was much wider i.e. 13’ X 35’ and the AC installed in such a large area is not enough for proper cooling as per specification of the alleged unit. The same facts and conditions were told to the complainant by the engineer but the complainant did not listen that version of the engineer and also refused to sign the job sheet. The engineer again requested and told the complainant that there is no issue in the unit rather for the proper cooling of the large area of shop another AC must be installed but the complainant became adamant and started demanding replacement for his unit and without any cause of action directly filed the present complaint. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate reply also resisted the complaint on similar grounds as that of op no.1. It is also pleaded that complaint is without any technical report and that on a single time thousands of the unit are manufactured and if there is any manufacturing defect during manufacturing of the same, then the same will occur in an entire lot. It is also submitted that answering op was not in a receipt of a single complaint from any of its customer who are using the product manufactured by answering op of the same lot.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has also furnished bill Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2 , postal receipts Ex.C3, Ex.C4, acknowledgment Ex.C5, copy of aadhar card Ex.C7, copy of sale deed Ex.C8 and photographs Ex.C9 and Ex.C10. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Rajnish Parmar Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2 and copy of job sheet Ex.R3. OP no.1 produced his affidavit Ex.RW1/A.
7. It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased the air conditioner from opposite party no.1 on 27.6.2017 which was installed in the shop of the complainant. As per allegations of the complainant, the air conditioner is not giving proper cooling though on the other hand, learned counsel for ops have strongly contended that air conditioner is defect free and giving proper cooling but complainant is running business of Dairy and confectionary shop and there are freezers in the shop which needs extra cooling and same is not possible with the air conditioner which was got installed by the complainant. It is legal obligation of the opposite parties to provide free and proper services to the consumer after sale of the product since complainant is claiming that air conditioner is not giving proper cooling. So it is the duty of the ops to provide services and to carry out necessary repairs in the air conditioner, if same is required and to make the air conditioner defect free.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the air conditioner of the complainant if the air conditioner of the complainant suffers from any defect and repair is required even by replacing parts, if any without any cost by sending their own expert mechanics/ engineers at the place of complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found by the engineers of the ops that air conditioner is not repairable or that same is not working properly even after repairs, the ops shall be liable to replace the air conditioner with a new one of same make and model within further period of one month. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.1.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
