Haryana

Karnal

270/14

Sunita W/o Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kavinder Singh

29 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.270 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.:24.09.2014

                                                               Date of decision:29.5.2017

 

Mrs. Sunita wife of Shri  Pawan Kumar, New Grain Market, Gharaunda District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. The Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. Plot no.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its Management Director.

2. The Sony Electronics, Railway Road, Gharaunda (Karnal) 132114 through its owner.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani…….Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri  Kavinder Singh Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                    Opposite party no.2 already exparte.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that she purchased two Air Conditioners of Lloyd company Model no.FLS 19A3S from opposite party no.1, vide invoice no.1405 dated 9.7.2013, for an amount of Rs.56,000/-. At the time of purchase, the opposite parties assured that if there would be any problem in the AC during warranty period the same would be replaced with new one.  After few months, the one AC started creating problem of leaking/emitting water in the room from its pipe inside it and causing immense discomfort, inconvenience to her and her family.  She approached the opposite party no.2 and requested for repair or replacement of the same, but to no effect.  She contacted the opposite party no.1(Manufacturer) and lodged four complaints bearing no. 19014121075, 280614176330, 04071482614  and 120714691973 on customer care no.1800-137-7781, but AC was neither repaired nor replaced by opposite party no.1. Ultimately, she got served a legal notice dated 1.8.2014 upon the opposite parties in that regard, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused her mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the Air Conditioner of the complainant has become out of warranty as the same was purchased on 9.7.2013. The opposite party no.1 is a renowned company in Electronics Products and Commodities and has been manufacturing Electronics Products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronics Products is highly sophisticated, therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. It has been admitted that the complainant lodged complaints with the opposite party no.1, but denied that the AC was not repaired. It has been pleaded that the AC was checked after receipt of each call and found that the AC in question was not installed properly and was giving problem of water drain. Hence there was no manufacturing defect in the AC. It has further been pleaded that the complainant herself has put forward a concocted story in order to get her perfectly working air conditioner replaced with a new one and to grab money from the opposite parties.

3.                None put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against it, vide order dated 31.08.2015.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C3 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.1, affidavit of Raj Kumar Sharma Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the complainant had purchased two Air Conditioners for an amount of Rs.56000/-, vide bill no.1405 dated 9.7.2013, the copy of which is Ex.C3. Complainant has alleged that after few months of its purchase, one AC started giving problem of leaking/emitting water in the room from its pipes, so she reported the matter to opposite parties for rectification of the defect, but opposite parties failed to remove the defect. Thereafter, complainant made several complaints to opposite party no.1 in that regard, who is manufacturer of the AC in question. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 has denied about any manufacturing defect in the AC. However, it has been admitted that the complainant had made complaints regarding defect in the AC. It has been submitted that after receipt of each complaint the defect was removed. In order to prove its plea opposite party no.1 has placed on record copies of complaint Ex.OP1 to Ex. OP4.

 8.               A perusal of these complaints clearly shows that AC in question was having problem during warranty period and the same was not removed by the opposite party no.1 after repeated complaints. It was the duty of the opposite party no.1 either to rectify the defects or in case the defects were not repairable then replace the AC in question of the complainant. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the opposite parties was deficient.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to replace the AC in question of the complainant with new one of the same value. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to  pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 29.0.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Veena Rani)         (Anil Sharma)

                               Member                  Member