BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.370 of 2016

Date of Instt. 29.08.2016

Date of Decision: 18.07.2017

Vishal Jain son of Sh. Narinder Kumar Jain, resident of House No.296, Friends Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Vallabh Air Conditioners, 375, Niwan Suraj Ganj, Opp. Mini Lal Rattan Cinema, Jalandhar, Through its authorized signatory

2. M/s KC Bros, Adjoining Naulakha Cinema, Ludhiana, through its authorized signatory.

3. Carrier Media India Pvt. Ltd., (Camipro Compressor), SCO No.264, Second floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh-160035 Through its Managing Director/Directors/Prop./authorized signatory.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. RK Bhagat, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Vikas, Proprietor of the OP No.1 in person.

OP No.2 and 3 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased a compressor Comp. PH190M2A 1 Ton 1/W bearing Batch No.8757E brand Camipro from the OP No.1 vide Bill No.1460 dated 05.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.6000/- and at the time of delivering the compressor, the OP No.1 being the authorized dealer of the OP No.2, who is the authorized dealer of the OP No.3 gave 12 months warranty for the said compressor to the complainant. After the purchase of the compressor, the said compressor worked smoothly only for some time but later on the same started giving troubles in its functioning, as such the complainant approached the OP No.1 on 07.10.2015 and disclosed about the bad functioning of the compressor. At that time, the OP No.1 received the said compressor and receipt was issued on 07.10.2015 that the compressor is within warranty and has received the same for replacement. After that the complainant approached the OP No.1 many times and asked about the compressor but all the times the complainant informed by the OP No.1 that the matter of replacement of compressor is still under consideration, as the same has been sent to the company for its replacement and by saying so the OP No.1 does linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. On the regular and continued visits of the complainant, the OP No.1 supplied the copy of the receipt regarding the delivery of the possession of the compressor to the authorized agent of the OP No.3 i.e. the OP No.2 but even then did not give the satisfactory reply about the replacement of the compressor to the complainant

2. That the compressor in question was purchased by the complainant on 05.06.2015 and the same was handed over to the OP No.1 for its replacement on 07.10.2015 but strangely enough the same has not been replaced by the OPs to the complainant which has caused so much mental tension, harassment, agony to the complainant and even a legal notice dated 23.05.2016 was also served upon the OPs but all in vain and as such the instant complaint is filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to make good the claim of the complainant by paying Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental tension, harassment, agony and monetary loss on account of the fact that the complainant has to purchase a new AC after paying the amount for the same which is the result of the illegal act and conduct of the OPs and for not providing the better services to the complainant and committed the deficiency in providing better services to the complainant and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, OP No.2 and 3 did not come present and ultimately, they were proceeded against exparte whereas OP No.1 appeared in person and filed written reply and whereby admitted the para No.1 of the complaint that the complainant has purchased the compressor on 05.06.2015 and further admitted that on 07.10.2015, the complainant approached the answering OP and the answering OP received the said compressor and issued a receipt thereafter on account of warranty period and further admitted that the answering OP informed the complainant about the replacement of the compressor is under consideration and further submitted that the answering OP is only a dealer of the OP and except that the OP has no concern whatsoever about the replacement or repair of any sort of the compressor in question but the other allegations as made by the complainant in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith some documents Ex. C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, OP No.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 in person and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. In nutshell, the claim of the complainant is that he has purchased one compressor on 05.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.6000/- from the OP No.1 but the said compressor worked smoothly only for some time and thereafter it started giving troubles in its functioning and accordingly he returned the said compressor to OP No.1 being within warranty period and OP No.1 issued a receipt dated 07.10.2015 with the assurance that he will get replace the same from OP No.2 and 3 but till today, but the compressor is not returned to the complainant and whereby he was harassed and accordingly the instant complaint filed. The factum in regard to return of the compressor as well as its warranty for one year is admitted by the OP No.1 in his reply at Para No.1 and he also admitted that the said compressor being not running smoothly was returned to him against receipt and copy of the receipt is available on the file Ex.C3 and bill of the compressor is Ex.C2, wherein the warranty period is categorically mentioned 12 months. The compressor in question has been purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 and guaranty was also given by the OP No.1 and a bill issued by the OP No.1 on his own letter pad, which is not warranty card of the company i.e. OP No.2 and 3, if warranty is given by company i.e. OP No.2 and 3 then the liability should be affixed of the OP No.2 and 3 but in this case, the warranty itself has been given by OP No.1 on the bill Ex.C2 and moreover the complainant has returned the said compressor to OP No.1 on 07.10.2015, after getting a receipt Ex.C3 and then duty casted upon the OP No.1 to get it replaced himself or from the OP No.2 and 3 but the OP No.1 did not bother to get it replaced nor make any efforts for replacement of the same and as such there is a established negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 and even the compressor till today is not returned to the complainant and as such we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief only from OP No.1.

8. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation including price of the compressor, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and further OP No.1 is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3000/- The entire compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest on the aforesaid total amount of Rs.23,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

18.07.2017 Member President