Punjab

StateCommission

A/742/2015

Kanwal Kishore Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.C.Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Akhilesh Vyas

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.742 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 07.07.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on : 16.02.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:  17.02.2017

 

Kanwal Kishore Bhalla s/o Sh. Bihari Lal Bhalla, resident of House No. 1791/4, opposite Railway Workshop, G.T Road, Amritsar.  

 

 

                                                                        Appellant/Complainant       

        Versus

 

1.      S.C Electronics, Sanyo Building 29, Queens Road, Amritsar   through its partner/prop/principal officer.

2.      Whirlpool of India Limited, having its corporate office at plot no.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122002.

 

                                                                Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Amritsar.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

        

Present:-

          For appellant                         : Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate

          For respondent no.1             : Ex-parte

          For respondents no.2           : Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant directed this appeal against order dated 03.06.2015 of District Forum Amritsar, dismissing his complaint. The appellant is the complainant in the original complaint before District Forum and respondents of this appeal are OPs therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased one AC from OP no.1, vide invoice no. 3771 on 06.01.2014 for Rs.29,500/-. OP no.2 is authorized distributor of OP no.2 and complainant, thus, became consumer of OPs. The daughter of complainant is married at Ropar and he gave AC to his daughter, as a gift. OP no.1 installed said AC in the matrimonial house of daughter of complainant at 119 Sun Enclave Ropar by charging of 1500/-. When AC was switched on in May 2014, it was found not giving proper cooling. Complaint          no. HR0314003779 dated 01.6.2014 and another complaint no. CH0614000088 dated 05.06.2014 were lodged by complainant in this regard. Reminder was also sent to OPs, but to no effect. E-mail dated 08.07.2014 was also sent for redressal of the grievance of complainant to OPs, but of no use. AC was brought even to Amritsar and OP no.1 was requested either to set it right or to replace it with new one. There is warranty of one year from the date of its purchase.  The defects developed during warranty period in it and  OPs are under obligation to set right the defects in the AC or to replace the same with new one. The complainant remained deprived of benefits of use of AC. The complainant has, thus, filed this complaint against OPs directing them to replace the said defective AC or to refund the price of Rs.29,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its purchase, besides Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      OP no.1 was set exparte before District Forum, vide order dated 18.09.2014.

4.      OP no.2 filed its reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred that complainant had lodged complaint only about low cooling of AC. The complainant had lodged only one complaint with company on 01.06.2014, vide no. CH0614000088, but same was wrongly received by call centre agent of Haryana Branch under no. HR0314003779 and then the same was rectified and transferred to Punjab branch under complaint no. CH0614000088 and this fact was duly informed to the complainant. The service engineer went to the attend the complaint of the complainant and commented on the service request form that the room size, where AC in question was installed was of 10'x 12' and one ton AC cannot give proper cooling for such room size. He also commented that for proper cooling therein because 1.5 ton AC was required for such type of room of big size. It was denied that various reminders were sent to OP. It was also denied that the mechanic told the complainant and his daughter that there was some manufacturing defect in the AC. Any deficiency in service was vehemently denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3.  As against it; OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar Chugh  Ex.OP2/1 along with copies of document Ex.OP-2/2. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Amritsar dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 03.06.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Amritsar dated 03.06.2015, the complainant now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

7.      The pleadings of the parties have been appraised by us. The complainant also swore his affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his case on the record. Ex.C-2 is invoice dated 6.01.2014 for purchase of AC of Rs.29,500/- by him from OP no.2. Ex.C-3 is one complaint but it is not decipherable from which and to whom it is addressed by complainant. To counter this evidence, OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar Chugh  Ex.OP2/1. He denied any manufacturing defect in the AC. He stated that there is no expert evidence on the record led by the complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the AC. Ex.OP-2/2 is the service request dated 01.06.2014 by the mechanic of OPs. It has recorded that room of 10'x12' with room temperature 34c, AC temperature 26.c, one ton AC was not properly cooling for big sized room. This observation has been recorded in it, customer refused to sign. Service report Ex.OP-2/2 dated 1.06.2014 is not signed by the complainant and it is submitted by Aman Handa. This is only evidence on the record.

8.      From careful perusal of evidence, we find that AC was purchased on 06.01.2014 by the complainant from OP no.2 for price. The service request report, which is not signed by the complainant is dated 01.06.2014, was made within a period of six months. When a new product is purchased from OP no.2 generally duration of one year or six months warranty at leas is provided therefor. The complainant raised grouse of insufficient cooling by AC with OPs within six months period from the date of purchase. The complainant has not signed the service request because he was not agreeable to it. Room size 10'x12' is said to be bigger in size, as per the capacity of one ton AC by OPs, as contained in the report Ex.OP-2/2. The problem in the product is recorded, as  of low cooling. Even this document, which is not signed by complainant, lends corroboration to the version of the complainant that there was less cooling of this product for 10'x12' room, which could not be said to be bigger in space. What is the purpose of purchasing of new AC, if it is not giving proper service to the purchaser. So in the circumstances of the case, the AC must be within warranty period of six months, because no warranty less than six months period is given generally by manufacturer of the product. OPs have also not disputed about issuance of any warranty of this AC. So in the circumstances of the case, we differ from the findings of the District Forum on this point. Consequently, we hold that OPs are duty bound to remove the defect in the AC and set it right, so that it starts giving proper cooling at first instance.

9.      The order of District Forum Amritsar dismissing the complaint of the complainant dated 03.06.2015  is set aside in this appeal and OPs are directed to firstly try to set right the AC, so that it could start giving proper cooling. In case AC failed to achieve the result, then to replace it with new one of the same model free of costs. The appeal is accepted by reversing the order of the District Forum in this case and resultantly complaint filed by complainant now appellant stands accepted, as referred to above. We also award compensation of Rs.5,000/- to complainant for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, which shall be paid to complainant by OPs jointly and severally with a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                              (J.S GILL)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

February 17,  2017                                                             

(ravi)