STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(First Appeal No. 405 of 2010)

A.S.Trikha, Adv., H.No.1398, Sec.22-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

1]      Whirlpool Co. India Ltd., Whirlpool House, Plot No. 40, Sector 44, Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana State) (Manufacturing Company)

2]      Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (CHD), SCO No.1112, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh (Dealer)

              ....Respondents/OPs.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Appellant in person.

                   Ms.Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER

                   This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 07.10.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (appellant) was dismissed.

2.                           The case of the complainant is that on 2.5.2009, he purchased a Whirlpool 1.5 ton A.C. (Elite Split-SR18K30), with Stabilizer for Rs.26,000/- from the OP No.2. However, later on, it turned out to be an old model of 2008, but no action was taken on his complaint. The cooling of the A.C. was improper and within a week of its installation, the wires connecting the stabilizer and the inner unit of the A.C. were brunt, upon which the mechanic was called, who joined the end wires emanating from stabilizer and inner unit with the condensation white colour plastic pipe which was melted. Despite repeated requests, neither the OPs replaced the burnt condensation plastic pipe of white colour used for out letting water from the inner unit nor a burnt wire connecting stabilizer and the inner unit of A.C. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs to do the needful, but they did nothing. Hence this complaint was filed alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3.                           OPs in their joint reply admitted the factual aspects of the case and pleaded that if the product was manufactured in the year 2008 and bought in the year 2009, it does not imply that the product had some manufacturing defect. They further submitted that they did not receive any complaint, whatsoever, from the Complainant on the issue involved.  Any repair or replacement would be done by them as per the warranty clause, which explicitly excludes the plastic parts from the ambit of warranty. The receipt of the legal notice was denied by the OPs. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                           The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

6.                           The complainant has challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

7.                           We have heard the arguments of Appellant in person as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents and have perused the record.

8.                           The A.C. was purchased by the complainant on 02.05.2009 vide Annexure P-4. The machine carried a warranty of one year and the compressor a warranty of two years.  The contention of the OPs/Respondents is that they were never informed by the complainant about the problem within the warranty period. As against it, the complainant has referred to Annexure P-2, which according to him was prepared on 29.09.2009 about the burning of the wires connecting the stabilizer.  Annexure P-2 is not legible to show as to what was the problem and what was the defect, if any, in the A.C.  Even if the contention of the complainant is accepted that the wires were burnt, there may be several reasons therefor namely that the wiring was old, that the wiring was of sub-standard quality or that the sanctioned load was less as compared to consumption, as a result of installation of the A.C. The complainant has not produced any such report to suggest that there was defect in the A.C. or the consumption of the A.C. was more than expected.  It is also not proved by him, if the wiring was burnt due to any such defect in the A.C.

9.                           The next complaint was made by the complainant on 21.09.2010 vide Annexure P-3. Admittedly it was after the warranty period was over. It had been reported that the A.C. filter was dusty, there was no sound and regarding joint burning, connector was recommended,  A.C. consumption was reported to be 9-10 Am.

10.               The Learned Counsel for the OPs/Respondents has argued that in fact the electric wiring of the house is an old one; the complainant had already one A.C.  and if another A.C. was installed, it may not have borne the load thereof, due to which the complainant may be facing such problems.  In any case, it cannot be said to be a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs/Respondents because there is no manufacturing defect proved in the A.C. We are therefore of the opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the Learned District Forum are perfectly legal and valid. There is no merit in this Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

7^th April 2011.

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.405 of 2010)

Argued by:

Appellant in person.

Ms.Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the respondents.

Dated the  7^th day of April, 2011.

ORDER

                   Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed.