BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  : 1131 of 2009

                      Date of Institution :  10.08.2009

                      Date of  Decision   :  02.12.2009

Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Krishna R/o 235-A, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]   Satlej Enterprises, SCO 84, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/ authorized representative.

2]   Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd., Appliance Division, H.O. Service, Plant 11, Pirojshnagar, Vikhroli [W], Mumbai 400 079, through its authorized representative/Manager.

3]   Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Company Ltd., Service Centre, Plot No. A-40, Phase VIII-A, Indl. Area, Mohali – 160 059, through its authorized representative/ Manager.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

          SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA        MEMBER

          DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL     MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

  Sh.Rajbir Singh Guron, Adv. for OP No.1.

  Sh.Gangadharan P.V., Auth. Repr. of OP No.2 & 3.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

          Concisely put, the Complainant purchased an Air Conditioner (for brevity ‘A.C.’) from OP No.1 for Rs.15,200/- vide invoice dated 13.4.2009 (Annexure C-1). The A.C. worked fine for few months before developing a snag on 13.7.2009. The Complainant immediately lodged a complaint with the Service Centre i.e. OP No. 3, pursuant to which a Service Person visited his place and after checking the A.C. opined that it was only a minor snag developed in the motor of fan, which was to be removed. The said Service Person left the place with the assurance to bring the spares next day. When till 17.7.2009 nobody turned up, the Complainant again lodged a complaint with OP No. 3, but this time nobody visited him. He then visited OP No. 1 on 20.7.2009, who advised to contact OP No. 3 in the matter, as they were helpless. Ultimately, he served a legal notice dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure C-2) on the OPs, pursuant to which Service Person of OP No.1 visited his house with another A.C. unit, which was without outer cover and asked the Complainant that the replacement had arrived from the Company and his problem would be solved now. Firstly, he allowed them to replace the unit, but when they uncovered the same, it was noticed to be an old and used unit. Even the Sr. No. and manufacturer’s code were also tempered with and were not legible. He then asked the said Service Persons to acknowledge this fact in writing, which they flatly refused to do. He then asked them to take the said Unit back and bring a new and better replacement. It was alleged that after that OP No. 3 started ignoring the requests of the Complainant and had also refused to register his complaint. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2)          Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3)          OP No.1 in its reply admitted the factual aspects of the case.  It was pleaded that ever since the purchase of the A.C. with effect from 13.4.2009, no complaint as to the malfunctioning of the A.C. was received by it from the Complainant till 12.7.2009. The Complainant when received, was promptly attended to and on inspection of the A.C. it was found that the motor which runs the blower and the exhaust fan was not working properly and its replacement was suggested to the Complainant. However, the Complainant was insisting on replacement of the entire A.C. unit, which could not be done as, there was no manufacturing defect in the A.C. and only the motor of the blower fan needed replacement. It was denied that the complaint of the Complainant was not attended to on 17.7.2009.  The A.C. of the Complainant could not be made functional on account of the adamant attitude of the Complainant. It was pleaded that as a goodwill gesture, on the asking of the OP Nos. 2 & 3, OP No. 1 sent a new A.C. unit for replacing the A.C. sold to the Complainant, but he refused to get the same replaced and was adamant in demanding compensation on wrong and erroneous cause, wrongly alleging manufacturing defect in the A.C. whereas only the electric motor went out of order, replacement of which would have made the A.C. full functional. Rest of the contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4)          OPs No. 2 and 3 filed their joint reply pleading that OP No.1 was providing service to the A.Cs. supplied through them. They had forwarded the complaint to them for attending the same and obtaining Complainant’s satisfaction. On receipt of complaint dated 17.7.2009, a representative was sent to Complainant’s place on 18.7.2009, but he refused to get the A.C. attended for the reasons best known to him. On knowing the intention of the Complainant for not getting the A.C. attended on 18.7.2009, on receipt of the legal notice, they advised OP No. 1 to replace the A.C. to satisfy the Complainant. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5)          Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6)          We have heard the Complainant in person, learned counsel for OP No. 1 & authorized representative of OP Nos. 2 & 3 and have also perused the record.

7)          The contention of OP-1 is that though the Air Conditioner of the complainant could be made functional by replacing the motor which was defective, yet a good will gesture on the asking of OP-2 and OP-3, they sent a new Air Conditioner unit for replacing the Air Conditioner sold to the complainant.  It was so mentioned in Para 5,6,11 and 12(wrongly mentioned again as 11) of the reply filed by OP-1.  Their contention further is that the complainant refused to allow them to install the brand new Air Conditioner in place of the old one and demanded compensation. As against it, the contention of the complainant is that the Air Conditioner developed a snag on 13.07.09, regarding which he immediately lodged a complaint with the OP but nobody visited his house till 17.07.09, upon which another complaint was lodged.  He ultimately visited OP-1 on 20.07.09, who asked him to contact OP-3.  Thereafter he served a legal notice dated 23.07.09, after which service persons of OP-1 visited his house with another Air Conditioner unit, which was without outer cover.  When the complainant inspected the Air Conditioner unit, he found that the same was an old one and the Sr. No. and manufacturing code had been tampered with, due to which he refused to accept the replacement.  The OP-2 has not mentioned either the Sr. No. or manufacturing code of the Air Conditioner which was sent to the premises of the complainant for replacing the previous Air Conditioner.  It is however admitted by the OPs that they were ready to replace the motor in which there was a snag but the complainant was asking for replacing the entire Air Conditioner unit.  His demand therefore was for a new Air Conditioner and if the same was being acceded to the complainant would have been satisfied and would not have refused the replacement.  We therefore do not find merit in the contention of the OPs and the facts given by the complainant appear to be correct that the OPs did not bring a new Air Conditioner but had brought an old and tampered Air Conditioner, which obviously the complainant did not accept.  There was therefore deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, first in delaying the repair of the Air Conditioner and thereafter supplying a used and tampered Air Conditioner to the complainant.

8)          The complainant has purchased the Air Conditioner for his comfort.  It however did not work during the peak summer season in July,09. The OPs did not send their service personnel immediately to repair the same or to replace it.  There is therefore  deficiency in service on their part.

9)          In view of the above discussions, the present complaint succeeds.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are accordingly directed to replace the existing Air Conditioner with a new one for which they have already agreed and claim to have even sent one to the premises of the complainant. It shall be installed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and the OPs would pay jointly and severely a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him harassment.  If the Air Conditioner is not installed within the afore said period or the compensation is not paid, the OPs would refund the amount of Rs.15,200/-, alongwith the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2,200/- alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.08.09, till the amount is paid to the complainant. 

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.