Haryana

Panchkula

EA/35/2015

PAWANKUMAR GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

S R Traders Panchkula and another - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

Present :               Complainant not present.                                                                                                                                     None for OP No.1.

                                      Mr.Surinder Rana authorized representative for OP No.2.

                                       The complainant/DH has filed the present execution application for the execution of the order dated 06.04.2015 passed by this Forum in compliant No.73 of 2014. In his application the complainant/applicant has stated that the order dated 06.04.2015 passed by this Forum has not been complied with by the Ops and the Ops had tried to continue with the harassment of the complainant.  Since the present application was received by post, therefore, he was asked to complete the formalities of the execution application vide order dated 04.06.2015. He completed all the formalities of the execution application on 13.07.2015 and notices were issued to the Ops for 24.08.2015. Sh.Surender Rana, authorized representative of the OP No.2 appeared and sought time for compliance. In complaint No.73 of 2014 this Forum vide order dated 06.04.2014 has passed the following order:

 

12. While, thus allowing this complaint, we direct Ops to repair the Air Conditioner of the complainant free of cost and to the entire satisfaction of the latter. The liability to comply with this order shall be joint and several of the Ops. The mere fact that OP No.2 has volunteered to repair it free of cost would not exonerate OP no.1 from a charge of deficiency in service and for not having attended to the grievance of the complainant inspite of having been addressed a number of times therefor. In case the repair is not carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant, the Ops shall be jointly and severally liable for:-

1.           Refund the purchase price of the AC (at the time of purchase) to the complainant;
2.  Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and harassment undergone by him; and
3. Pay a sum of Rs.5,000;/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

 

OP No.2 filed the objections by way of affidavit of Surender Rana, authorized representative of M/s Llyod Electrical and Engineering Limited Plot No.2 Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi stating therein that the Air Conditioner is running properly and the order dated 06.04.2015 passed by this Forum was duly complied with and stands already executed. He further stated that the service engineer of JD visited the premises of the DH on 18.04.2015 and checked the unit in the presence of the complainant. The unit was running satisfactorily to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. He further stated that it was brought to the notice of the complainant/DH that room size of the DH is bigger than the recommended guidelines. The unit was to run in his presence and temperature was duly recorded before starting and after starting of the unit. It was recorded after running the unit for 10 minutes. Even no defect was pointed out by the complainant/DH at that time and the unit was running satisfactorily for one hour in his presence. On this, the complainant refused to sign the job sheet on 18.04.2015. However, a letter dated 02.05.2015 was issued to the complainant which was dispatched on 19.05.2015 and the same was duly received by the complainant/DH. He never pointed out any other defect till date of the receipt of the communication. Thereafter both the parties were directed to file an affidavit in support of their contention. The Ops filed affidavit of Sunil Kumar, Service Engineer, who was deputed by Llyod Electrical and Engineering Limited Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi. In his affidavit Sunil Kumar has specifically mentioned that he visited the premises of the DH on 18.04.2015 and checked the AC unit in the presence of complainant. The unit was running satisfactorily to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. He also pointed out that it was brought to the notice of the complainant that room size of the DH is bigger than the recommended guidelines. He in para No.3 of his affidavit has made the following observations :

1. Room size in which the AC is fitted is 35 ft (Long) x 25 ft (Wide) i.e. 875 Sq. feet whereas as per recommended guidelines 1.5 ton AC is effective for room measuring 150 Sq.ft.
2. Grill temperature of AC was 10.8 degree Celsius after starting/running the AC.
3. Outside temperature (Ambient) of house was 34 degree Celsius.
4. Room temperature before staring was 29 degree Celsius.
5. After running AC for ten minutes room temperature recorded near AC was 20 to 24 degree Celsius. Since the room is bigger than the recommended capacity therefore there was loss in cooling.
6. Outdoor back pressure was 60 PSI
7. AC unit was running in OK condition as per specification.
8. No defect pointed out by complainant
9. AC was running satisfactory and the same was run for 1 hour in presence of complainant.                 

The complainant also filed his affidavit dated 23.09.2015. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the complainant/applicant it reveals that the complainant has not mentioned about the room size as pointed by the OP and service engineer in their affidavits dated 03.08.2015 and 04.09.2015. The complainant/DH also failed to point out any defect in the air conditioner. He also admitted the visit of service engineer Sunil Kumar.

2.                          As per the affidavits of both the parties, it is clear that the Ops have repaired the air conditioner as per the direction of this Forum but the act and conduct of the complainant/DH reveals that he intentionally in order to get the second part of the order passed by this Forum i.e. Refund the purchase price of the AC (at the time of purchase) to the complainant  implemented  by raising unnecessary objections despite the fact that he himself has failed to rebut the objections filed by the Ops. Moreover, his abstinence from the court speaks for itself. Therefore, we have no hitch to conclude that the order under execution has been duly complied with/fully satisfied and the execution stands dispose of. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced : 08.12.2015

 

                             S.P.Attri               Anita Kapoor                Dharampal                                                                              (Member)             (Member                        (President)