Delhi

East Delhi

CC/128/2017

CHOUDHARY AJAY RAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHIL TAADERS - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2019

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          128/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  18/04/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 26/11/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          28/11/2019  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Chaudhary Ajay Raj

s/o- Sh Subhash Chandra

R/o 20, Main Road, East Azad Nagar, Delhi 110051……………….……….Complainant                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-The Manager,   

M/s Sahil Traders (Seller)   

F-16/10,Mandir Marg Road,

Krishna Nagar Delhi 110051

 

2-The Manager,

M/s Lloyd Electricals Ltd

Kalka Ji, New Delhi 110019

 

3- M/s Comfort Aircon (service centre)

18A St no. 7, Old Brij Puri,

Parwana Road, Delhi 110051………………………………….…………………..….Opponent

 

Complainant…………………………………..Mr Sharad Pandey & Santosh Kumar Advo.   

Opponent 1 & 2 ..…………………………. Mr. Ravi Kishore & others Advocates   

 

Quorum            Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                           Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                           Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari,  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case

 

Complainant purchased Lloyd 1.5 Ton AC from OP1 for Rs 20,500/-on 07/04/2016 vide invoice no. 1480 and got installed on 02/08/2016 (Ex CW1/1). The AC developed problem, so lodged complaint with OP2 on 03/08/2016 whose service engineer attended and told that gas had leaked and would require refilling for which complainant had to pay Rs 2100/- as charges of gas and paid Rs 1000/- as advance money. The gas was filled on 04/08/2016 and paid the balance amount (Ex CW1/2, 3 &4). The AC again developed some problem for which service engineer visited on the complaint and after inspection of AC told that PCB was not working and it would require replacement. The same was neither replaced nor informed complainant so a legal notice was sent on 18/02/2017 (Ex CW1/5&6). When no reply received, filed complaint and claimed cost of AC Rs 20,500/-, Rs 2100/- paid to service engineer with Rs 50,000/- compensation and litigation charges Rs 10,000/-.

OP1/seller in their written statement denied all allegations of alleged in complaint and stated that no defective product was sold as complainant had examined the AC and was installed as per OP2/manufacturer’s terms and conditions. It was stated that AC had one year standard warranty and any working problem OP2/manufacturer of the product was responsible. Hence, there was no deficiency in selling AC.  

OP2/manufacturer and OP3/service provider denied all the allegations and submitted that the said product had no manufacturing defect neither at the time of purchase or at the time of installing. Their serviceman after attending complaint found that gas had leaked and same was filled for which gas charges were charged (Ex OPW2/1&3) Thereafter PCB was found not working so same product replaced free of cost (Ex OPW2/4). It was denied that OP2 ever charged for providing service charges as product was under warranty. So, there was neither deficiency in providing services by OP3 nor had any manufacturing defect, hence complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed rejoinder to both written statements and denied all the replies submitted by OP’s. Complainant relied on all his facts and evidences on record. Complainant submitted evidences through his own affidavit and reaffirmed that evidences as invoice (Ex CW1/1) and complaints sent to OPs (Ex CW1/2) were sufficient to prove deficiency of OPs as neither PCB replaced nor cost was offered for refund in reference to legal notice, so all the facts of complaints were true and correct.

OP1 submitted evidences on affidavit through Mr Subhash Gupta, Proprietor and reaffirmed on oath that as per their evidence OPW1/1, product was purchased by complainant in good working condition and thus there was no deficiency on their part. So, there was no evidence of selling defective part and had never sold any defective products and limited responsibility in selling good products of authorised products and thus had no deficiency in selling product.  

OP2 /Lloyd as manufacturer and OP3/ service provider as authorised service centre submitted their evidence through Mr S R Arora working as legal manager that on the complaint, gas was filled and PCB was replaced free of cost as per their evidence on record as product was under standard warranty terms and condition where free replacement of defective product required. Hence, OP2 were not entitled to pay compensation or refund as no point of issue complainant could bring any evidence of manufacturing defect.

Hence there was no deficiency in services either from OP2 or from OP3.  

Complainant submitted written arguments and stressed on facts and evidence of his complaint. OP1/seller also submitted written arguments and relied on facts as per their written statement, so taken of record.  

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels. After perusal of material on record, order was reserved.     

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was seen that complainant had not put any evidence on record to fasten liability on OPs. That being so, complaint deserves dismissal, but as AC was under warranty and had gas leakage problem, so complainant is directed to get any defect present in his AC or in compressor within 30 days from receiving of this order and OP3 shall not charge for its services up to three months as an extended warranty tenure has to be provided from the date of product getting defect free. There shall be no order to cost or compensation.  

The copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per Regulation 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under regulation 20 (1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur, Member                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                Sukhdev Singh President