DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 371 of 26.9.2017

                                      Decided on: 3.9.2021

Rattandeep Singh Advocate, House No.273/11, Malkana Patti, Samana, District Patiala.                                                               …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Shivam Electro Plaza, 16, Green Lehal Passi Road, Patiala.
2. Samsang India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Towers, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
3. Samsang Service Centre, Near Hotel Flyover, Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib Road, Patiala.                           …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.P.S.Jawandha, counsel for complainant.

                                      OPs No.1&3 exparte.                                
                                      Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OP No.2.                                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Rattandeep Singh, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Shivam Electro Plaza and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a split A.C. of Samsung company on 14.4.2017 for Rs.41000/- and same was got installed in his house. There was warranty of five years given by the OPs.
3. It is averred that after about 20 days the AC started giving problems as there was no cooling and the complainant got checked the same from OP No.3 who found that there was defect in the PCM and assured to replace the same with new one but they did not do so. The complainant got sent legal notice upon the OPs with the prayer for the refund of the amount of Rs.41000/- but they did not pay any heed. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, pain and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving direction to the OPs to replace the AC with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.41000/-alongwith interest; to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly sent to the OPs. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply whereas none appeared on behalf of OPs No.1&3 and they were  proceeded against exparte.
5. In the written reply filed by OP No.2, preliminary objections have been raised to the extent that the complainant has filed frivolous complaint. It is pleaded that the complainant lodged complaint with OP or  authorized service centre on 10.5.2017 and 6.7.2017 which was duly attended  and reported problem of low cooling was duly rectified by replacing PCB and thereafter AC was perfectly working and thereafter no complaint was lodged by the complainant.It is averred that  the complainant has signed the satisfaction letter dated 20.7.2017. Thereafter no complaint was lodged. Further objections are that the present complaint is abuse of process of law and totally false and frivolous; that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and is liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, it is pleaded that there is warranty of one year and additional 4 years warranty is only for the compressor. It is averred that the first complaint was lodged on 10.5.2017 and same was attended and problem was duly rectified by replacing the PCB. It is averred that t reply to the legal notice was duly given. It is further pleaded that after 20.7.2017 complainant has not lodged any complaint regarding working of AC in question. The OP after denying all other averments has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Anindya Bose  and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased Split AC of Samsung on 14.4.2017 for Rs.41000/- and same was installed in his house and warranty of five years was given. The ld. counsel further argued that after 20 days of purchase, there was no cooling and the same was got checked from the engineer of OP No.3 who found defect in PCM and assured to replace the same with new one. The ld. counsel further argued that AC was not repaired despite repeated requests. So the complaint be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the OP has received two complaints dated 10.5.2017 and 6.7.2017 which were duly attended by service engineer and the problem was rectified. So nothing is due and the complaint be dismissed.
12. In support of the case, Rattandeep Singh complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his averments.Ex.C1 is the receipt of Electro Plaza dated 14.4.2017 vide which AC was purchased by the complainant for Rs.41000/-,Ex.C2 is legal notice,Ex.C3 is reply to legal notice.
13. On behalf of OP No.2 Anindya Bose has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement.
14. As per the receipt Ex.C1, the Split AC in question was purchased on 14.4.2017 from OP No.1 for Rs.41000/-.As per the complainant after 20 days the AC started giving problems. OP No.1 from whom the AC was purchased and OP No.3, service centre were proceeded against exparte as they never appeared. OP No.2 Samsun India has filed written statement and they have admitted in para no.2 that complainant till date has lodged two complaints which were duly attended by service engineer and the problem was rectified .But onus was upon OP No.2 to prove that problem was rectified but no documents were filed to show that the entire problem was rectified. It was the OP No.1 from whom the AC in question was purchased, to rectify all the defects, but they have not done so. So as it was purchased from OP No.1, as such it was the duty of OP No.1 to repair the same which they have not done and even they have not appeared to rebut the claim of the complainant.
15. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed to repair all the defects by replacing PCM within 45 days and also to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of the order be made by OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:3.9.2021         

                                          Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar          Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                     Member                                         President