BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.591-13

Date of Institution:26-08-2013

Date of Decision:17-04-2015 

Sh.Manpreet Singh son of Sh.Paramjit Singh, resident of 60, Kapoor Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Sound Trading Company, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ person over all Incharge.
2. L.G.Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., having its Branch Office at Kennedy Avenue, Opposite Mohan International, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/ Principal Officer/ Person over all Incharge.
3. Golden Services, Authorised Service Center for L.G.Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., 45-48, Deep Complex, Opposite Doaba Automobiles, Court Road, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ Principal Officer/ person over all Incharge.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Manpreet Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one L.G. Air Conditioner 1.5 Split vide Invoice No.1081 dated 2.5.2012 for a sum of Rs.28,700/- from Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturer and Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized service center of Opposite Party No.2 company. Complainant alleges that since the date of its purchase, said Air Conditioner was not working properly and it was having inherent manufacturing defect as the same was not providing cooling. The complainant visited the premises of Opposite Party No.1 many times and complaints were lodged by the complainant regarding defects in the Air Conditioner in question with Opposite Party No.1 personally as well as telephonically, but of no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.28,700/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum or to replace the Air Conditioner in question with new one.. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint is misconceived and aimed at harassing the Opposite Party unnecessarily in order to pressurize the Opposite Party to replace the Air Conditioner in question beyond the warranty period which has already expired on 2.5.2013 and as such after expiry of the warranty period, the liability of the answering Opposite Party ceases in case of any defect if occurred in the product. The amount of Rs.450/- was charged being the labour charges for repairing the defect as the warranty period had already expired when the defect was reported and as such, the Opposite Party No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service. Even otherwise, the said service is to be provided by Opposite Party No.3, the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for any defect in the Air Conditioner in question.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted the complainant has not reported any problem in the Air Conditioner in question, but only stated that the Air Conditioner is suffering from inherent defects. The complainant has called the replying Opposite Parties twice only for minor settings and once for change of season servicing and thereafter never ever reported any problem with Air Conditioner in question. Moreover, said Air Conditioner does not have any manufacturing defect or any such has been developed in it. No such defect has been enumerated or proved by the complainant for which the burden lies on the complainant. The complainant has filed the false complaint just for its enrichment by abusing the process of law.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.   
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harminder Singh, partner Ex.OP1/1. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Jatinderpal Singh Ex.OP2,3/1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased one L.G. Air Conditioner 1.5 Split from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice dated 2.5.2012 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.28,700/-.  Complainant alleges that said split Air Conditioner was not working properly and it was having inherent manufacturing defect as the same was not providing cooling. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 many times and lodged complaints regarding the defect in the said Air Conditioner. The complainant also approached Opposite Party No.1 personally as well as telephonically. The electrician of the Opposite Parties came and made Air Conditioner functional, but ultimately, the same defect persisted in the Air Conditioner. Even the mechanic of Opposite Party No.3 repaired the aforesaid Air Conditioner and charged Rs.450/- vide invoice dated 17.7.2013 from the complainant Ex.C3, but even then, there was no positive result.   Ld.counsel for the   complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that he being dealer of LG products has sold the Air Conditioner to the complainant. The product was covered under the warranty for a period of one year. Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for any repair/ replacement of the product in question. It is manufacturer or the service centre that have to repair or replace the product under the warranty. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
9. Whereas the case of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 is that the complainant has reported no problem in the Air Conditioner in question to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. He has simply stated that the Air Conditioner in question has inherent manufacturing defect. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are ready to repair the Air Conditioner of the complainant and make it fully functional without charging any amount as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the  complainant purchased the Air Conditioner in question from Opposite Party No.1 on 2.5.2012. Complainant alleges that it was not giving proper cooling and he lodged complaints with Opposite Parties and the mechanic of Opposite Parties came to the premises of the complainant and checked the Air Conditioner in question and made it fully functional. But after some time, same problem occurred as it was not giving proper cooling. Complainant further alleges that the Air Conditioner in question has manufacturing defect, but he could not produce any cogent evidence regarding inherent manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner in question. No doubt, the complainant produced affidavit of Nirmal Singh, proprietor of Nirmal Refrigerator & Air Conditioning Centre, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar (Ex.C5) who stated that he physically checked the Air Conditioner. The indoor unit of the Air Conditioner opened so many times and now it is not repairable. However, this witness could not produce any certificate or documentary evidence to prove that he is trained mechanic of Air Conditioner or that he has experience in that mechanical line. He has also not stated as to which inherent defect the Air Conditioner has. Rather this witness admitted in his cross examination that he has not passed any Diploma in Air Conditioning nor he attended any workshop from any government authority or any private company who is dealing with Air Conditioners. He is also not the summoned witness. He has also admitted that the room in which the Air Conditioner installed is big one. This witness has admitted that when he opened this Air Conditioner on 1.11.2013, it was not opened by anybody. So, it stands fully proved on record that before checking of the Air Conditioner by this witness Sh.Nirmal Singh, it was not checked by any of the mechanic of Opposite Party No.3 i.e. authorized service centre of LG Air Conditioner.   Apart from this, at the time of arguments, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 submitted that Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are ready to repair the Air Conditioner of the complainant and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Ld.counsel for the complainant has also agreed with this submission made by ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
11. Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 to get the Air Conditioner of the complainant repaired and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount as the Air Conditioner was within warranty when it became defective, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 17.04.2015.                                                             (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member