DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Jagjit Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o H.No. 2076, Victoria Enclave, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

Sai Sales Corporation (Basement Sukhmani Chambers), SCO 68-70, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Sh. Mahesh Attari.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                    MEMBER

Argued By:       Sh. Vishal Madan, Advocate for the Complainant.

Sh. R.B.S. Jain, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 The Complainant is the user of a Kitchen Chimney of Glen Brand for the last over 05 years. As a sound was being emitted from the said Chimney, the Complainant called the Opposite Party, whose Service Engineer came to repair the same. The Engineer changed the Chimney Blener and charged `749/- + `200/- for replacement and repair, vide bill dated 12.05.2011.

                    However, the Complainant found that the same sound was still coming from the Chimney, hence he again called the Opposite Party. The Service Engineer of the Opposite Party was not able to rectify the problem and told the Complainant that the Chimney Blener would have to be replaced again.  The Complainant was not willing to part with the same amount once again. He thus served a legal notice dated 27.05.2011 on the Opposite Party with the request to replace the equipment with a new one free of cost.

                    As the Opposite Party did not redress the grievance of the Complainant, he has filed the present complaint alleging that the Opposite Party is negligent and deficient in service and liable for unfair trade practice and are using illegal means to harass the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for refund of the amount paid along with compensation for harassment, mental agony & torture, besides costs of litigation.  

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Party.

3.                 Opposite Party in their reply has taken the preliminary objection that the Kitchen Chimney was repaired by the them on 12.05.2011. However, as a fresh Complaint was lodged soon thereafter, it was found that the noise/ sound in the Blower/ Blener was due to the pipeline being chocked on account of long usage of 05 years. The flow of the air from the Blower/ Blener to exhaust point was obstructed which put pressure on the equipment. This fact was disclosed to the Complainant and the Complainant agreed to get the pipeline cleared. The Complainant even duly signed the Service Call Slip with his satisfaction note (Annexure R-1) to this effect.

                    Unfortunately, the Complainant has not yet got the pipeline cleared and hence, the problem is continuing. The Opposite Party has stated that the Complainant is a mature and educated person and if he does not get the pipeline cleared, then there is no fault of the Opposite Party. 

                    On merits, Opposite Party has again taken the same contentions as above. They have reiterated that as the exhaust pipeline is chocked, hence the Blower/ Blener is not getting free flow of air and the blockage is putting pressure on the Blower/ Blener which causes noise. Opposite Party has therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                 It is evident that the fault continues because the pipeline of the Chimney is chocked. The Complainant has also not filed any rebuttal evidence in rejoinder/reply to the averments of the Opposite Party that he has not got the pipeline cleared. It seems that he is aware of his own fault. Hence  the allegations of the Complainant with regard to harassment, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service simply boil down to the fact that there is a natural blockage in the pipeline which has been used for over 05 years which is causing noise. The Complainant is insisting that the fault is in the Blower/ Blener supplied by the Opposite Party hence it needs to be replaced.  We do not find any merit in the contentions of the Complainant and the situation does not call for any orders to such effect.  But the blockage was to be cleared by the Opposite Party only as they are the service providers for the equipment installed.

7.                 In this regard, reference may be made to the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994(1) CLT 1 (SC), where it has held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of the enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation.  Also in case Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2007(1) CLT 303 (Pb.), it was held that if two view are possible, the one which helps the consumer should be taken.

8.                 In the light of above judgment, we take a lenient view and dispose off this complaint with a direction to the Opposite Party to clear the blockage and make the Kitchen Chimney (Glen) of the Complainant operational, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. No compensation or costs.   

9.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th March, 2012.                                                

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER