O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that Voltage AC installed at the residence of the complainant was not functioning properly. The complaint was made to OP-1 who deputed a technician of OP-2. On 8.6.2012 the complainant was charged a sum of Rs.400/- for the same. It has been pleaded in the complaint that the representative of OPs visited the premises of complainant on 16.6.2012 and also charged Rs.900/- whereas the complaint was to be entertained within 48 hours. It has been alleged in the complaint that within a week there was a leakage of gas and again the AC stopped cooling. Complaints were made number of times but no technician or representative of the OPs attended the complaint. The complaint remained unattended despite number of complaints and therefore, the complaint suffered physical, mental torture and agony. It has been further alleged that again on 11.7.2012, the OPs illegally charged Rs.500/- towards installation of the indoor unit though OPs were not called upon to install the same. It has been also alleged that the complainant made payment without prejudice to her rights to get the refund of the same from the OPs. The complaint of the complainant moves around deficiency of services by the OPs. Vide the present complaint the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.33,00/- as refund for repairs of the Split Voltas AC and Rs.85,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony, torture and inconvenience. The complainant has also claimed Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the institution of complaint till realization.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to both the OPs. OP-1 has filed its written statement. In the written statement OP-1 has denied the dates of complaint having been received by it as false and bogus and pleaded it has no record with it. It has been further pleaded that the complainant has suppressed and concealed material facts and had not come with clean hands. It is admitted by the OP-1 that in June, 2012 complaint of gas leakage was reported and the same was taken care of against payment. Similar complaint was also reported in July, 2012 and the gas filling was done against payment but as the problem persisted the nut and valve of the AC was changed on 17.7.2012 on chargeable basis as the AC was out of warranty. It is further pleaded that the OP has not received any complaint regarding any problem since the replacement of nut and valve of the AC. It has been pleaded that said AC was purchased on 1.8.2008 and the same was out of warranty, therefore all the repairs or change of parts were to be done on chargeable basis. It has been pleaded that all the complaints were attended promptly. Rest of the averments raised in the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by the OP.
3. Both the parties have filed the affidavits in support of respective averments. The complainant has placed on record service reports dated 8.6.2012, 16.6.2012, 11.6.2012 and 17.7.2012. These service reports show that there was a gas leakage problem in the AC which was carried out on chargeable basis. The service report dated 17.7.2012 also shows that nut and valve were changed, these service reports have been duly signed by the complainant under the caption “Job carried out to my entire satisfaction”. OP during the pendency of trial has also filed a report dated 18.4.2014 whereby the main RCB was replaced and gas filling was done, it shows that no charges was levied or paid by the complainant in this regard. It has been duly signed by the complainant. The complainant has not lead any evidence in rebuttal of this document.
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings and the documents placed by both the parties. The ordersheet dated 11.3.2014 shows that efforts to resolve the issue were made by the Forum and OP was directed to send its engineer to put the AC of the complainant in order. It was further directed that if the required AC is to be taken to the workshop, the OP shall give receipt of the same to the complainant. On the next date of hearing i.e. 10.4.2014 OP submitted that he had sent its engineer to repair the AC but the chamber of the complainant was locked. On 23.4.2014 OP-1 reported that the AC of the complainant has been put in order. The complainant submitted that at this stage, the AC is not being used, therefore, sought adjournment. On the next date of hearing i.e. 30.5.2014, the complainant submitted a fresh grievance that the AC has started sparking. It is apparent that with the efforts of the Forum, the AC was put in order free of cost and a report dated 18.4.2014 by the OP to this effect duly signed by the complainant proves that the AC was repaired and the gas was filled free of cost. Still the matter is being agitated by the complainant for the reasons best known to it. The complainant is a practicing lawyer and cannot be expected to put her signatures on the jobsheets without satisfying herself.
5. We have considered all the facts and circumstances and various orders passed by the Forum during the proceedings and also the report of engineer of the OP-1 and we find that all the service reports show that the services rendered by the engineer of OP were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant accepted the same by putting her signatures. In view of above, we are, therefore, of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service by the OPs. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 17th day of March, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
