BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.448 of 2019
Date of Institution: 07.08.2019
Date of Decision : 19.04.2021
Rajesh Godara aged 37 years son of Sh. Bhajan Lal, resident of Street No.5, Hari Vishnu Colony, Kanganpur Road, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Rama Electronics, Old Sabzi Mandi, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
2. O General Air Conditioner, Road SCO-3, 2nd Floor, Rarewala market near Preet Palace, Ludhiana, Punjab 141002.
3. ETA General Pvt., Ltd. R.S. Nos. 79 to 81, Kalitheerthalkuppam, Mannadipet Commune, Pondicherry- 605 107.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Manish Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that on 25.05.2018 complainant had purchased one air conditioner of O-General company from opposite party no.1 and five years guarantee of its compressor and warranty of its cooling was given. That there was problem in its compressor since beginning and there was also problem in its cooling, due to which they made several complaints upon which after checking, the air conditioner was repaired time and again. It is further averred that the problem in the air conditioner remained as it is even after its repair and in the back of the bill, it is clearly mentioned that after one year, air conditioner or its compressor will be replaced. That in the previous year, the problem in the air conditioner was not solved despite their several complaints upon which complainant asked the ops to replace the air conditioner but every time he was given assurance that air conditioner will be repaired. That complainant has got inspected the air conditioner from the mechanic of the company for ten times, but problem of the cooling in the AC is existing and its compressor has not been replaced despite the fact that same is in guarantee period. It is further averred that at the time of purchase of AC, the dealer had explained about its qualities and told that it is of inverter model and it will work without stabilizer but now mechanics of the company are saying that the problem is due to non installation of stabilizer. That complainant has suffered lot of harassment and the opposite parties have caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. OP no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that there is no defect in the compressor of the AC. At the time of installation of the AC, there was some leakage of the gas from the compressor. The complainant had approached the answering op and same was corrected and since then compressor has been working in perfect way. The complainant had approached again but it was apprised to him that there is fluctuation of voltage at the site of installation of the AC, so stabilizer required to be installed and accordingly complainant was advised. The fact remains that there is no fault in the AC in any way. On merits, the contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint made.
3. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that company provides one year comprehensive warranty and four years warranty only for the compressor of the unit and in case any problem occurs then the same would be repaired as per company policy and also warranty means repair and not replacement. The said provided warranty is subject to some conditions and the warranty shall be void in case of breach of provided terms and conditions in the warranty. It is further submitted that in fact as per records of company, no complaint has been registered by complainant regarding the unit. The answering op company has an online system to enter all claims/ complaints vide serial numbers in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number, job sheet number has been provided by complainant and for this reason no details found in the online system of company which means that complainant has never approached to the answering ops and there is no problem in the unit. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. Complainant has tendered copy of bill Ex.C1 and copy of his adhar card Ex.C2.
6. On the other hand, ops no.2 and 3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajnish Parmar as Ex.R1. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased air conditioner in question from opposite party no.1 on 25.5.2018 and this fact is also evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. The air conditioner is manufactured by opposite party no.2. The complainant has alleged defect in the air conditioner from the very beginning of its purchase and has alleged that air conditioner has been repaired for at least ten times by the mechanic of the opposite parties but despite several repairs the air conditioner is not working properly and is not giving cooling. The air conditioner has been purchased by complainant on 25.5.2018 and opposite parties had given warranty of its compressor for five years and the present complaint has been filed by complainant on 7.8.2019 i.e. just after one year and three months of the purchase of the air conditioner. Though, the opposite party no.1 has pleaded that there is no defect in the compressor of the air conditioner and at the time of installation of the air conditioner, there was some leakage of the gas from the compressor and after approach of complainant in this regard to them, said problem was resolved and since then the compressor has been working in perfect way, but the opposite party no.1 has not placed on record any evidence to prove that air conditioner is working properly. The op no.1 has not placed on file any affidavit of the mechanic who rectified the said problem nor placed on record any report of the engineer to prove that air conditioner is defect free rather this is itself admission of the opposite party no.1 that at the time of installation of air conditioner, there was some leakage of the gas from the compressor of air conditioner. So, in our view the air conditioner is suffering from defect from the very beginning and same has not been rectified despite repairs.
9. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3 contended that Op no.1 never forwarded complaint of the complainant to ops no.2 and 3, hence there is fault, if any, same is on the part of opposite party no.1. But we see no substance in this contention of learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3 because non forwarding of complaint by op no.1 to ops no.2 and 3 is matter between dealer and manufacturer and complainant cannot be allowed to suffer for any lapses on the part of dealer and the opposite parties no.2 and 3 being manufacturer of the air conditioner are equally liable for any defect in the air conditioner. Moreover, there is no record on the file to prove that no complaint has been forwarded by op no.1 i.e. dealer to ops no.2 and 3. Non removing of the defect in the air conditioner within warranty period and non providing of after sale services to the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the air conditioner in question with a new one of the same make and model and in case the same make and model is not available, then the opposite parties will refund the price of the air conditioner in question to the complainant after retaining the old air conditioner. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. Member President,
Dated: 19.04.2021. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by: Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
