Delhi

North East

CC/148/2017

Hari Om Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Technoking Distributor - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 148/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Hari Om Saini S/o Late Ram Shankar Saini K-568, Main Chowk Gautam Vihar,                  Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Technoking Distributor Showroom: Shop No.-711, Main 100 Ft.Road, Chander Lok, Near Mahalaxmi Hospital Shahdara, Delhi-110093.   LLoyd Electric & Engineering Ltd Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

28.04.2017 19.11.2018 19.11.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1.  Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he had purchased an LLOYD AC model no. LS19A3SH, indoor no. 8549 outdoor no. 9997 of capacity 1.5ton manufactured by OP2 from OP1 on 25.06.2016 for a sum of Rs. 24,500/- vide invoice no. TD-965 and also paid  Rs. 1500/- vide book no. 23, serial no. 1118 dated 25.06.2016 towards installation charges for the same.  However, the subject AC became dysfunctional March 2017 onwards for which the complainant lodged repeated complaints with the customer care of OP2 from 24.03.2017 till 18.04.2017 and against such complaints the engineer of OP2 would simply diagnose gas leakage problem and filled gas and changed the cooling coil but the AC did not function properly despite several complaints and repeated repairs. Therefore the complainant, feeling harassed was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum against the OPs praying for issuance of directions against them to either replace the defective AC with a brand new one or refund of the cost of the subject AC alongwith Rs. 20,000/- each as compensation for mental harassment and litigation charges.

The complainant has attached copy of invoice no. TD-965 dated 25.06.2016 for sum of Rs. 24,500/- for purchase the LLOYD SAC 1.5 ton, copy of retail invoice book no. 23 bearing serial no. 1118 for sum of Rs. 1500/- towards installation, copy of jobsheets no. 524667 dated 26.03.2017, 525922 dated 31.03.2017 and serial no. 1243/book no. 15 dated 17.04.2017 alongwith series of mobile messages sent by customer care of OP2 acknowledging complaints registered by complainant with respect to the subject AC.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 08.05.2017. None appeared on behalf of OP2 despite service effected on 18.05.2017. Assistant Manager of OP1 appeared on 24.07.2017 and filed written statement on 22.08.2017 in which it took the defence that OP1 never provided any warranty/ guarantee for the subject AC since it was neither the manufacturer nor the supplier of the subject AC but was a mere shopkeeper and that grievance if any of the complainant with respect to the defect in the AC should have been the subject matter of OP2. OP1 further submitted that the communications by the complainant were also made with OP2 and not OP1 and no relief was paid against OP1 while admitting the factum of the sale of the subject AC by it to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint qua itself.
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken by OP2 in reiteration of his grievance in the complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties exhibiting respective documents.
5. Written arguments were filed by the complainant and OP1 in brief summary of their respective grievance / defence.
6. We have heard the rival contention from both the parties and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant.

From the bare perusal of the repeated and innumerous complaints lodged by the complainant with respect to the subject AC, it leaves no room for doubt that the AC in question was defective machine supplied by OP1 and OP2 which went repeatedly out of order many times during the warranty period and the defects were also not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Rellech Bio Chemical System Vs Amulya Kumar Behara (Dr.) (2007) IV CPJ 388 (NC) had in a similar case upheld the order of the lower Fora holding the OPs guilty of deficiency of service in having failed to render service within warranty period.

In the present case in view of the permanent deficiency in the functioning of subject AC which could only last one summer, requiring repeated repairs and still not working satisfactorily, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are guilty of deficiency of service in having sold the defective AC in capacity of dealer and manufacturer to the complainant and therefore jointly and severally liable for the same.

7. We therefore direct both the OPs jointly and severally to refund the cost of the AC i.e. Rs. 26,000/- (Rs. 24,500/ + Rs. 1,500/) to the complainant. We further direct both the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.             
8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on 19.11.2018 

 

(N.K. Sharma)    President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member