Haryana

Kurukshetra

252/2018

Sohan lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

united Sales - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 252 of 2018.

Date of instt. 28.11.2018. 

                                                                       Date of Decision: 20.08.2019.

 

Sohan Lal son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, resident of Ward No.24, Akash Nagar Near New Anaj Mandi, Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. United Sale Corporation near Hotel Kamaya, red road, Kurukshetra through proprietor United Sale Corporation.
2. Office of L.G. Electronics India, Private Ltd. A-Wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi 110017 through Manager/ concerned officer.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Complainant in person.

                 Opposite party no.1 exparte.       

 Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sohan Lal against United Sale Corporation and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant had purchased an air conditioner of 1.5 ton of LG company from opposite party no.1 on 26.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.30,500/- vide bill No.275 and op no.1 had given all types of assurances regarding his dealership with the company, guarantee and about his liability in case of any defect in the air conditioner. That an amount of Rs.5000/- was also obtained from the complainant for fitting of the air conditioner and when he operated the air conditioner, it gave cooling for ten minutes and then it stopped giving cooling. It is further averred that then official of op opened the air conditioner and repaired something but the air conditioner gave cooling for ten minutes and then it stopped cooling and the official asked the complainant that it happens sometime and asked to operate the air conditioner and that it will be ok at its own. It is further averred that thereafter also the air conditioner was running in same earlier condition and when complainant visited op no.1, he sent some persons for repair but to no effect and in this way despite spending amount by the complainant he has not taken any benefit of the air conditioner and AC did not give cooling. Then op no.1 told him that he will talk with op no.2 and engineer will come from Delhi and will make the AC in perfect condition. That in this way they remained without AC in summer season and after the summer season, op no.1 took away the air conditioner and told that he will got repaired the air conditioner in coming summer season or will give new air conditioner. That thereafter in next year air conditioner was installed but the problem remained as it is. The complainant took several rounds to op no.1 and op no.1 got made conversations of the complainant with the engineer and they told that there may be manufacturing defect in the air conditioner and they will get checked the same and will give new air conditioner to him. That in this way the guarantee period was expiring and he again went to op no.1 and he received Rs.3500/- from him through cheque and extended the guarantee of air conditioner till April 2019. It is further averred that in this way the complainant was taking rounds and rounds to the op no.1 but to no effect. That in the year 2018 also, they were inspected his air conditioner but there was no change in the condition of the air conditioner. That complainant also got served legal notice upon the ops but to no effect. That op no.1 also misbehaved with the complainant and the ops have caused mental agony to the complainant and his family and he has also suffered financial loss. That complainant also got registered complaints through his mobile but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections  regarding maintainability, suppression of true and material facts, locus standi, cause of action and that complainant has not placed on record any expert report to prove that the AC in question has any manufacturing defect. On merits, it is submitted that complainant purchased the said air conditioner on 26.5.2015. The air conditioner so purchased by complainant was a brand new defect free air conditioner and the same is being used by complainant as per his requirements. The complainant has put forwarded a concocted story just to get his AC replaced with a new one and to grab money illegally from the ops. In fact, the complainant had lodged his first call/ complaint with the answering op no.2 on 17.8.2015 after almost three months of date of purchase of said AC. Upon receipt of said call, a service engineer visited the premises of complainant and made the AC in perfect working condition after making some adjustment in the drain tray. The complainant had lodged his second complaint on 2.4.2016 and the said call was closed just after due service of the AC. It is further submitted that AC of complainant was not taken by the ops. The service engineer has never told the complainant that the AC might be having manufacturing defect. The complainant has opted for the Happy Living Plan i.e. AMC of his AC. It is pertinent to mention here that when a customer opts the Happy Living Plan i.e. AMC  contract, his product is thoroughly checked and if the same is found to be in perfect working condition, only then the receipt for the Happy Living Plan is issued. In the present case, the AC of complainant was checked and was found to be in perfect working condition, therefore, the receipt was issued for the happy living plan. It is further submitted that after receipt of the legal notice, the service engineer when visited the premises of complainant, he found that compressor of the AC has become faulty. The compressor of the AC of complainant was replaced on 14.6.2018 and the AC was made to be in perfect working condition. It is further submitted that if there is any problem in the AC, he should have lodged a call/ complaint with answering op no.2 instead of filing the present complaint. The AC was in extended warranty period. All the complaints so lodged were duly attended and closed after due repairs. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and CD Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.  Ld. Counsel for Op No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW-1/A and documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and closed his evidence.

6.             We have heard complainant and learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.

8.             From the copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.C1 it is evident that complainant purchased the air conditioner in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.30,500/- on 26.5.2015. Ex.C-2 shows that complainant had extended the warranty of the air conditioner. Complainant argued that the air conditioner is not working properly after purchasing the said AC.  Ld. Counsel for the OP NO.2 argued that there is no defect in the air conditioner.  It is very much clear in Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 the air conditioner was repaired by the Ops.  Mark A and Mark-B clearly shows that there is some problem in the air conditioner, but Op No.2 not removed the defect of the air conditioner.  This is the clear cut deficiency on the part of opposite parties.   

9.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair AC including replacement of defective part, if any within 30 days and also provide one year extended warranty from the date of repair.   We also direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses to the complainant. File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be given to both parties.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 20.8.2019 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Neelam)           (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

                Member                     Member