Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/30

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soni Electricals & repairs and Others - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                                          Consumer Complaint No. : 30 of 05.07.2016

                                                          Date of decision                 :21.02.2017

                  

Jarnail Singh, son of Sh. Kehar Singh, resident of Village Chamkaur Sahib, P.O. and Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar. 

                                                                                               ......Complainant

                                                                                   Versus

 

1.       Soni Electricals & Repairs, Opposite Civil Hospital, Ropar through its proprietor. 

2.       Deepak Electronics, Backside, MC Office, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, (Service Centre) through its proprietor 

3.       Friends Enterprises, Near Kamal Nursing Home, Sun City, Rupnagar (Service Centre) through its proprietor

4.       Voltas Limited, VOLTAS House, A Block, Dr. Baba Sahib Amedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai -400033 (Head Office) through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                    ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                                               Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                                      SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Jarnail Singh, complainant in person

O.Ps. No.1 to 3 ex-parte

Sh. Inderpal Vohra, Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party No.4. 

 

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

        Sh. Jarnail Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’)  praying for the following reliefs:-

i)        To replace the AC in question with the new one

ii)       To pay Rs.50,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment

iii       To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

iv)      To award other costs or damages, as deemed fit and proper, in the interest of justice.

v)       To pass appropriate order or directions to the O.Ps.

 

2.                                    In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new AC make Voltas 1.5 Split, Model No. Premium 2S (2star) of Voltas Ltd, on 10.7.2014, for a sum of Rs.24,000/- from O.P. No.1, manufactured by O.P. No.4. On installation, it was found that it was not working properly. The mechanic who came to install the said AC told him that it was a dead AC. Immediately, he approached the O.P. No.1 and requested him to replace the same with the new one, but it refused to do so. On 12.7.2014, the mechanic of the O.P. No.2 came to his house and repaired the same by changing the parts of the outdoor units but even then it was not working properly. He lodged the complaints with the service centre on 13.8.2014, 19.4.2015, 01.06.2015 but it could not be set right by the O.Ps. On 3.5.2016, he lodged a complaint No.16050307901 with the O.P. No.3 for removal of the defect in the said AC. Inspite of the fact that the said AC was having warranty of 5 years but none has come to rectify the defects. He further stated that it came to his knowledge that the AC, which he purchased from the O.P. No.1 was an old model as it was launched by the company two years ago. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                          None having put in appearance on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 to 3, they are proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.8.2016.

4.                          On being put to notice the O.P. No.4 have filed written version taking preliminary; that complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Forum; that the complainant has filed this complaint just to harass and humiliate the answering O.P; that the warranty period of the compressor has already expired. On merits, it is stated that AC in question was purchased from the O.P. No.1. The compressor of the AC was replaced on the request of the complainant and AC was running in good condition. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, it being without any merit.

5.                          On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 along with copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Kamra, Authorized person of Voltas Limited Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.

6.                          We have heard the complainant, learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 and have gone through the record of the file carefully.

7.                                    At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 submitted that whenever complainant, complaint about some problem in AC in question, same was duly attended by the mechanic of its authorized service centre. In the activity report dated 2.6.2015 Ex.OP3, which is duly signed by the complainant, it is categorically mentioned that service OK, unit is working OK. From the activity report dated 9.7.2015, Ex.OP2, it is evident that complainant after repair of AC in question, has given the remarks that there is no noise and it is working properly. Since the AC in question is working properly, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal.

The complainant vehemently argued that the AC in question is not working properly and the noise problem is still persisting. Neither in the written version filed by the O.P. No.4 nor in the affidavit tendered by Sh. Gaurav Kamra, the Authorized representative of O.P. No.4, there is any reference of activity reports, Ex. OPs. No.2. & 3. He never put his signatures on the said activity reports. By seeing the said activity reports even with the naked eyes, it is apparent that the signatures put on both the reports, does not either tally with each other or with the signatures affixed on complaint and affidavit. Even, in the activity report, Ex.OP2, the hand writing of the sentence ‘there is no noise in the unit and unit is working properly’ is different from the hand writing in which the said form was filled, as such, no reliance can be made on the said documents. Therefore, the complaint be allowed and relief be given, as prayed for in the complaint.

On comparison of signatures of activity reports, it is evident that the signatures on these documents neither tally with each other nor match with the signatures on the complaint and affidavit. Thus, no reliance can be made on these documents to arrive at a conclusion that AC in question is working properly. There is no dispute regarding replacement of the compressor after two days of its purchase and was repeatedly repaired. Keeping these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the replacement of the AC in question is ordered.

The question which arises for consideration is that who is liable to replace the AC in question.

Since, the complainant purchased the impugned AC from O.P. No.1 manufactured by O.P. No.4, therefore, O.P. No.1 being seller and O.P. No.4 being manufacturer are liable to replace the said AC with the new one.  The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 are merely the service centre of the O.P. No.4, as such, no liability can be fastened against them, therefore, the complaint filed O.Ps. No.2 & 3 is liable to be dismissed.

8.                         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint              filed against O.Ps. No.2 & 3 and allow the same against O.Ps. No.1 &                              4. The O.Ps. No.1 & 4 are directed in the following manner:

                   1.       To replace the AC in question with the new one.

2.        To pay Rs.4000/- as compensation on account of mental agony          and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.       To pay Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation.

                   The O.Ps. No.1 & 4 are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 

9.                          The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                         (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated .21.01.2017                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                   (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER.