BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.355 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          20.07.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            14.01.2016

G.S. Chhabra son of Late Bishan Singh, resident of House No.522, Phase10, Mohali.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Reliable Sales and Services through its Prop. Shri Harmeet Singh, Tiny Shed No.3, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Sector 57, Mohali.

                                                               ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

Shri P.K. Kukreja, counsel for the OP.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:

(a)    to refund him Rs.1,000/- taken from the complainant as gas filling charges.

(b)    to pay him Rs.5,000/- each for harassment and litigation.

                The complainant who is 74 years of age retired as Executive Engineer from Punjab Public Works Department. On getting service of the Samsung AC installed at his residence, he found the AC was not giving proper cooling.  The complainant was told by the mechanic that the AC had only 5 Amp of gas against 8 Amp. He further informed the complainant that in the event of running the AC on low gas, it may burn the compressor.  The complainant approached the OP who deputed Shri Sailesh, Mechanic who after checking the AC told the complainant that for filling 3 Amp gas the complainant had to pay Rs.1,000/-.  The mechanic brought the cylinder and filled the gas in the AC and then charged Rs.1,000/- from the complainant vide receipt dated 27.06.2015.  Still feeling not satisfied with the cooling the complainant again approached the OP to check the level of gas and the mechanic of the OP visited his residence on 08.07.2015. After measuring the level of gas, he intimated that the AC had the same quantity of gas as measured on 13.05.2015.  The complainant contacted the OP who stated that the gas might have leaked from the AC. However, Harmeet Singh took the particulars from the complainant and assured to send the engineer but till the filing of the complaint no one turned up.  With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             The OP in the preliminary objections of the written statement has pleaded that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. The complaint is vexatious, frivolous and baseless. There is no ground for relief to the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act.  The OP is service provider and has not extended any warranty for the product. The complainant has not suffered from any of the losses for which he is praying for compensation.  The complainant is also not consumer of the OP. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not disclosed how the OP is involved in the present complaint.  The gas in the AC cannot be measured in AMP rather it can be measured by weight only. The OP has not received any complaint from the complainant nor attended the same.  The complainant has not approached the OP the AC gas purpose and the OP also does not have any employee named as Shailesh.  Neither the OP had rendered any service of refilling gas in the AC nor had it received consideration amount from the complainant. Mr. Shalesh had not reported shortage of gas, charging of Rs.1000/- as cost for 3 AMP gas etc.  The complainant has concocted false story and is well aware that the OP is not agency of Samsung and the OP is running its independent business.   Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1, and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-4.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Harmeet Singh, its Prop. Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP and have also gone through the written arguments filed by them.

6.             The issue involved in the complaint is regarding service and filling of gas of the Samsung AC installed in the bed room of the complainant. For this purpose the complainant availed the services of the OP on 13.05.2015 and the OP deputed one of its mechanic Shri Shailesh to undertake the activities. As per Ex.C-1 the mechanic charged Rs.450/- as labour charges including service tax.  Thus it is ample clear that the OP has rendered the services to the complainant upon consideration.  Regarding filling up of the gas, the complainant has paid Rs.1,000/- as gas filling charges which has been accepted by the mechanic of the OP Shri Shailesh on behalf of the OP on 27.06.2015 as is evident from Ex.C-2 wherein Shri Shailesh the mechanic has accepted the amount and given in his own handwriting the landline number of the OP as well as mobile number of Prop. Shri Harmeet Singh of the OP. When the complainant found upon the inspection of the AC by another mechanic on 08.07.2015 that the gas filled up by the mechanic of the OP is less by 3 AMP as against the required 8 AMP, as per the report of the mechanic Ex.C-3, the complainant raised the issue with the OP through its landline and mobile number, the OP shed off their liability of short filling of gas and so much even denied having any relationship with the mechanic Shri Shailesh to whom the complainant has paid Rs.1,000/- for filling of gas.

7.             In order to prove that the complainant has spoken to the OP through landline and mobile number on 08.07.2015, the complainant has produced the call details obtained by him from his service provider TATA Docomo and annexed the same as Ex.C-4 with the complaint. The report of the other mechanic dated 08.07.2015 Ex.C-3 regarding short filling of the gas and conversation on 08.07.2015 between the complainant and the OP through its fixed line and mobile number as provided by Shri Shailesh the mechanic of the OP while issuing the receipt Ex.C-2 has not been rebutted by the OP.  Therefore, the mere plea of no privty/relationship of the OP with its mechanic Shailesh is bereft of any merit in the absence of any rebuttal evidence against the duly proved conversation between the complainant and OP on the fixed landline and mobile numbers of the OP. The OP, therefore, cannot deny having rendered the service to the OP upon consideration. The said service duly proved being deficient as the mechanic has filled up less gas by 3 AMP as against the desired and required 8 AMP. The act of the OP thus, is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

8.             In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed against with the following directions to the OP;

(a)    to refund to the complainant Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum  w.e.f. 27.06.2015 till actual payment.

(b)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

January 14, 2016.     

                          (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

            Member