DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.399/2021

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this order the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP alleging deficiency in service in not giving/supplying the three star rating AC despite there being a specific request/order. 

1. Before coming to the facts of the complaint it is necessary to bring on record that complainant filed the complaint initially with a title of Matin Sales Agency through its owner Sh. Mukesh Kumar but subsequently amended the Memo of Parties in the name of Mukesh Kumar as mentioned in the cause title against OP i.e the Shiam Enterprises.  It is also submitted that there was certain errors in the complaint which he had filed initially and complainant thereafter filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for doing away such technical errors and as such he has filed an application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed and amended complaint was taken on record and as such the facts which are mentioned in the amended complaint dated 10.02.2022 are being mentioned here in below. 
2. It is stated by the complainant that he purchased one Split AC Modal-HSU18T-NMW3B (3 Star rating) on 15.07.2021 vide invoice number 15725 for a sum of Rs.34,000/- from OP.  The installation team of OP visited the place of complainant for installation and informed the complainant that this AC would not work in that area after which the complainant placed order for 3 star rating  2 Ton AC from OP which the OP agreed and he raised another bill being bill No.15752 and the sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid additionally to the OP and the AC was installed by the installation team of OP.  After the installation of AC the complainant came to know that the installed AC was of 1 star rating instead of 3 star rating but OP had charged the price of 3 star rating AC and thereafter he made a complaint to the OP who did not respond and as such complainant felt cheated and since the OP did not redress the complaint, he ultimately served a legal notice dated 12.08.2021 through his counsel upon the OP but the same was not replied and as such he has filed the present complaint with the prayer that OP be directed to replace the above said 1 star rating AC with the new 2 Ton 3 star rating AC along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony & harassment and litigation charges of Rs.40,000/-.
3. OP filed its written statement with certain delay which delay was condoned subject to cost of Rs.4,000/- and as such the OP in its written statement has taken the preliminary objection stating that complaint is not maintainable as it is false, vexatious and misuse of process of law, it is filed by concealing true and material facts, complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands, and there is no merit in the complaint.   
4. On merit it is denied that installation team of the OP told the complainant that AC of 1.5 Ton would not work for the complainant as it requires AC of 2 Ton, it is also denied that complainant had placed an order of 3 star rating 2 Ton AC and it is submitted that OP firstly denied to change AC as bill has already been generated but after several requests of complainant OP agreed to change AC of 1.5 Ton from 2 Ton and it was clearly mentioned that they have 2 Ton AC of 1 star rating and 2 Ton inverter AC 3 star rating and it was also clearly mentioned the difference in amount of AC 2 Ton and then complainant agreed 2 Ton 1 star rating AC by paying the difference amount which he paid and AC was installed. It is denied that the OP charged the price of 3 star rating 2 Ton AC and it is submitted that OP clearly mentioned that they have 2 Ton AC in one Star rating and inverter 2 Ton AC of 3 star rating and the AC which was chosen by the complainant and which was given by charging the difference was the same as ordered.  The bill was accordingly, issued afresh and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and all the necessary informations have already been mentioned in the bill itself and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
5. Complainant  has filed Rejoinder and its own evidence. 
6. The OP has filed evidence of Sh. Mohit Aggarwal Proprietor of OP.
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
8. Certain dates are relevant that first AC was purchased on 15.07.2021 and this AC was replaced on 18.07.2021.  The complaints were made immediately thereafter but no specific date is mentioned and ultimately the complainant issued legal notice to the OP on 21.08.2021 i.e. around one month of having installed the AC.  The purchase of AC for Rs.34,000/- and replacement thereof for Rs.44,000/- is not disputed by OP.  The only dispute is that complainant  submits that he has informed the OP to supply 2 Ton AC with 3 star rating and the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- additional amount for the same and OP has charged excessive amount as he supplied 1 star rating AC of 2 Ton only and has overcharged the amount whereas the cost of the 3 star rating AC with 2 Ton capacity was Rs.44,000/- and OP has charged Rs.44,000/- for 1 star rating of 2 Ton AC. 
9. On the other hand the contention of counsel for OP is that much discussion was held in between the complainant and the OP.  2 Ton AC with 3 star rating is only an inverter AC which was not ordered by the complainant rather he only asked for 2 Ton AC with similar star rating and which was supplied although initially the OP was not interested even to replace it as invoice has already been issued.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP. 
10. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that had there been no deficiency on the part of OP then complainant would not have engaged the Counsel nor would have served a notice upon the OP within a period of 35 days and therefore looking from the perspective of consumer the deficiency on the part of OP stands established. Apparently, this contention is not supported with any document and mere filing a complaint or serving legal notice by itself is not sufficient to get it appreciated that there may be some deficiency on the part of OP.  Further, if the complainant is of the opinion that he has been overcharged and rate of 3 Star rating 2 Ton AC was Rs.44,000/- which he has asked for and OP has charged extra amount/overcharged by supplying 1 star rating AC with 2 Ton capacity, then complainant should have placed on record some documents to show that what was the rate prevailing at the relevant time of 2 Ton AC with 3 star rating and 2 Ton AC with 1 star rating.  This document is not on the record.  Further, there is no document on record to show that complainant has placed a specific order of 3 star rating 2 Ton AC.  There is no such document.  The primary onus was on the complainant to prove that he has placed an AC of specific configuration which was for a specific amount and he has to prove that the price as quoted by OP for 3 Star rating 2 Ton AC was Rs.44,000/- or one Star rating AC of 2 Ton was of a lower rate then demanded by the OP.  Both these facts are not on record.  Therefore, mere filing the complaint and mere issuing the legal notice could have been appreciated only in much better way, if these documents would have been filed by the complainant along with the complaint but in absence of it, it cannot be said that the complainant has placed an order for specific configuration for specific amount or he has been overcharged or has been supplied a different AC than ordered.  Therefore, the complainant has not been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.       

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. 

File be consigned to Record Room.    

Announced on 15.01.2024.