Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/328/2019

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unique Radious - Opp.Party(s)

Prateek Singla

28 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.328 OF 2019

Date of Instt.:13.08.2019

Date of Decision: 28.01.2021

 

Suresh  Goel aged 59 years, son of Shri Jai Bhagwan Goel, resident of house no.366, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.                             

                                                              …….Complainant.       

                                                   Versus

 

1. Unique Radios, Krishna Gate, Kurukshetra  through its owner/partner/proprietor.

2.Gulati Refrigeration, SCO 54, Kheri Markanda Road, Opp. New Bus stand, Kurukshetra through its partner/proprietor.

3.Voltas Limited , Voltas House A Block  Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033, through its Managing Director.                                                                                         ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                           

 

Present:      Sh.Parteek Singla counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pankaj Parmer Advocate for the OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 and 3 ex parte.

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Suresh Goel against Unique Radios etc., the opposite parties.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a window AC of 1.5 ton capacity manufactured by OP No.3 on payment of Rs.23,900/- in cash from OP No.1  vide bill No.3658 dated 29.09.2014.  The AC was fitted by the authorized service engineer of the OPs at the residence of the complainant. The OP No.1 and 3 had given five years warranty on the compressor of the aforesaid air conditioner and had assured to change the same without any charges in case of any defect in the AC. It has been further averred that the said AC was having manufacturing defect since beginning.  The fan of the AC was lying broken. The OP No.3 admitted the defect and changed the fan of the AC  to perform their warranty obligation.  The compressor of the air conditioner had become defective and it used to shut down even before reaching the desired temperature and some time took two hours in restarting. A complaint No.19062305974 was made to the OP No.3 on 21.06.2019. Without doing needful, the OP No.3 closed the  said complaint on 27.6.2019 on the basis of false report made by OP No.2, although the complainant never asked the OP No.2 and 3 to reschedule the appointment. It is further averred that the complainant again made complaint No. 19072108142 dated 21.7.2019 to OP No.3 regarding the said  defect in the AC. The OP No.2 had checked the AC and found that compressor of the AC requires  replacement. However, compressor of the AC has been changed on 1.08.2019 and the matter has been delayed by the OPs.  The complainant could not use the said AC since 21.6.2019 , when the summer was at it height.  Inspite of changing the compressor No. HBLV13801350, the problem still exists and the compressor did not restart at the proper time and used to shut down after every 30 minutes without reaching the stage of desired temperature and there is unbearable sound of the compressor and took 15 minutes to restart. The OP No.2 had charged a sum of Rs.2,200/- from the complainant while replacing the compressor on account of gas charges vide invoice No.143 dated 1.08.2019 illegally as the OPs have no right to charge any amount from the complainant on account of replacement of the compressor which is under warranty.  The complainant again reported the defect in the compressor and charging of amount from the complainant but nothing has been done by the OPs which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.23,900/- i.e. cost of the AC, sum of Rs.2200/- illegally charges from the complainant alongwith interest and litigation expenses.

 

2.                On notice OP no.1 appeared and filed its written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. The OP No.1 has admitted the factum of purchase of AC from the OP No.1 but it has been submitted that no warranty  for five years as alleged by the complainant was given by OP No.1, rather same is to be provided only by manufacturer company/OP No.3.The complainant never visited the OP No.1 regarding defect in the AC nor made any complaint to the OP No.1 in this regard. Making of complaint to OP no.3 by the complainant and visit of service engineer or replacement of the compressor has been denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that if this Commission reaches at a conclusion regarding the relief to the complainant, the  OP no.3 is liable for the same being manufacturer of the AC in question. All other allegations have been denied specifically and it was submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present  complaint, the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant is stopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint and the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

3.                Summons sent to OP No.2 and 3 were duly served but the OP  No.2 and  OP No.3 have failed to appear and contest the case. Therefore, OPno.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 13.11.2019 and dated 26.09.2019 respectively.

4.                The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and closed his evidence.

 

5.                On the other hand, OP No.1 filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed its evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP no.1 and gone through the material available on the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint has argued that a defective AC has been sold to him by OP no.1 and the said AC is manufactured by OP No. 3. The said AC  is having five years warranty. He made many complaints  and the first complaint was made on 26.07.2019 and thereafter  complaints Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-16 have been made but compressor  of the AC was changed on 1.08.2019 against payment of Rs.2200/-  for gas charges illegally from the complainant and the said compressor is also defective and has not yet been changed  nor cost of AC  has been  refunded. He has further argued that now  he has purchased a new AC  as per bill Mark A  for Rs. 37,609/- and his amount of Rs.23,900/- be refunded to him alongwith the amount  of Rs. 2200/- charged from him.

8.                On the other hand, Learned counsel for OP no.1 has argued that he had sold the packed AC to the complainant as it was received from OP No.3 and if any claim is passed in this case, same is to be paid by OP No.2 and 3 and OP No.1 is not liable for any deficiency in services on the part of OP No.2 and 3.

9.                In this case vide bill Ex.C-2 the complainant had purchased the AC from OP No.1 for Rs.23,900/- and the said AC is manufactured by OP No.3. As per document Ex.C-1 the compressor of the AC  was having five years warranty. From the perusal of complaints Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-16, it is established that there was defect in the compressor of the  AC and the AC was  having five years warranty but the OP No.2 and 3 failed to rectify the defect of the AC, rather OP no.2  charged Rs.2200/- from the complainant during the warranty period for replacement of the compressor of the AC for gas charges,  which is not justified. The complainant has categorically stated that the AC is having manufacturing defect. It is settled law that there may not be any expert report regarding the product showing inherent defect, but making of complaints time and again goes to prove that the product is having manufacturing defect. In this case also from the complaints Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-16 it is clear that the AC is having manufacturing defect. The deficiency in services on the part of OPs is amply proved from the complaints made by complainant  time and again and from the fact that he had to purchase a new  AC  for his use as is evident from the bill mark A placed on the file during the arguments of this case. OP No.2 i.e. service centre and OP No.3 manufacturer have not come forward to  contest the case. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of cost of the AC i.e. Rs.23,900/- alongwith the amount of Rs.2200/- illegally charged by the OP no.2 during the warranty period of the AC in question. Besides this, the complainant has been made to suffer mental harassment and agony without any fault on the part of the complainant.

10.            In view of our aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 & 3 to refund the  sum of Rs.23,900/- to the complainant together Rs.2200/- illegally charged from the complainant  during the warranty period of the compressor of the AC. The complainant shall return the old AC   to the OP no.3. The complainant shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5000/-  for the mental harassment and agony caused to him. The OP No.2 and 3  are   further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. The complaint qua   OP No.1 stands dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:28.01.2021.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                             President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.