BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.106 of 2016
Date of Institution : 3.5.2016
Date of Decision : 14.12.2016
Arunesh Jain (Babu Jain) aged about 45 years son of Shri Fateh Chand Jain, resident of Suratgarhia Bazar, Band Gali, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Thind Electronics, Near Red Cross Office, Rania Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge.
2. LLOYD Electric and Engineering Limited, 159, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi- 1100200 India, through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.D. Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Deepak Monga, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he purchased one air conditioner of LLOYD company from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.23,500/- vide invoice No.987 dated 2.5.2015. At that time, op no.1 had given guarantee of air conditioner for a period of five years. After purchase, the air conditioner worked only for about two months and thereafter started giving high noise and throwing water which used to give bad smell in the room and it was impossible for complainant and others to sit in the room. Immediately, the complainant made complaint to op no.1 with request to remove the said defect but in vain and then he also made complaints on 17.7.2015 and on 31.7.2015. Then on 3.8.2015, the engineer of company visited his house and after checking it was replaced. But the said replaced air conditioner was also defective one because it makes more bad noise and he could not get result of replaced air conditioner. The complainant has made several complaints to the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and sought opportunities for filing written version but did not file the same despite last opportunity and therefore, their right for filing the same was closed.
3. In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2 and copies of codes of the complaints made by complainant as Ex.C3 to Ex.C9.
4. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for ops placed on file affidavit of Sh. Nipul Singal on behalf of ops.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Admittedly, the air conditioner purchased on 2.5.2015 vide bill Ex.C2 has been replaced by the opposite parties being defective one. The complainant is alleging defects in the replaced conditioner also. First of all, the ops have not filed any written version within stipulated period and then even at the time of arguments, the ops have failed to produce on record any document showing that their engineer ever visited the house of the complainant and checked the air conditioner in question and same is working properly.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint with the direction to the opposite parties either to repair the air conditioner in question and to make it defect free after replacement of defective parts, if any or to replace the same with new one. This order should be complied by the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:14.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
