This is a discussion on Pinky Radios within the Air Conditioner forums, part of the Electrical Appliances category; Complaint Case No : 787 of 2009 Date of Institution : 01.06.2009 Date of Decision : 16.12.2009 Vandana Singh w/o ...
Complaint Case No : 787 of 2009
Date of Institution : 01.06.2009
Date of Decision : 16.12.2009
Vandana Singh w/o Abhijit Singh, Resident of House No.3464, IInd Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.
V E R S U S
Pinky Radios, SCO No.369, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.
CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT
SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER
DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER
Argued by: Sh.Abhijit Singh, Husband/Authorized Representative of Complainant.
Sh.Kapil Kumar, Adv. for OP.
PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT
The complainant purchased one A.C. (Air Conditioner) make Carrier from OP on 19.4.2009 for Rs.21,190/- (including cost of stabilizer) and out of the said amount, she paid Rs.11,190/- and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid on installation of the A.C. at her premises. It is averred that the OP delivered the AC on 20.4.2009 at the premises of complainant but it did not supply the stabilizer nor sent any of their official to install the A.C. and that too inspite of many requests and visits, as a result she had to hire a private electrician at her own and paid Rs.700/- for installation of AC. It is also averred that the OP did not supply the stabilizer, which was necessary for effective working of the AC. It is further averred that the complainant had purchased the said AC especially for better recovery of his Father-in-Law, who was discharged after being operated for gall-bladder stone from PGI, Chandigarh but due to the above act of OP, the condition of her father-in-law deteriorated. Therefore, the present complaint was instituted alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service & unfair trade practice due to which the complainant & her family members had to suffer a lot.
2] OP filed reply and admitted the sale of AC along with stabilizer as well as the receipt of Rs.11,190/-. It is also admitted that installation charges were included in the cost of the AC. It is stated that the complainant requested the OP that she will make the balance payment of Rs.10,000/- on receipt of the AC and as such the AC with stabilizer was sent to her premises, which was duly received by her but inspite of that she did not make the payment of balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and just paid Rs.100/- as carriage charges. It is also stated that engineer of the company visited the premises of complainant on 20.4.2009 and 22.4.2009 for installation of the AC but the house was found locked on both days. It is further stated that the engineer of the company for installation of the AC was again sent twice or thrice but the complainant refused to get installed the A.C. on the ground that she was alone in the house and her husband was away to office and she would intimate the engineer with regard to the installation after coming of her husband from the office. It is next averred that the complainant leveled false allegations in order to escape herself from making the balance payment of OP of the AC. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4] We have heard the the parties and have perused the record.
5] It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the A.C. on 19.04.09 for Rs.18,890/- and a stabilizer for Rs.2,200/-. It was to be installed by the OP without any extra charges. The complainant has already paid the amount of Rs.11,190/- and was still to pay Rs.10,000/-. The contention of the complainant is that on 20.04.09 the rickshaw wala brought only the A.C. but not the stabilizer and when the husband of the complainant rang up the OP, he was assured that the A.C. would be installed on the next day and the person coming to install the same would also bring the stabilizer. However, no body came with the stabilizer nor the A.C. was installed despite a number of calls made to the OP. As against it the Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to Annexure C-2 showing that the A.C. and stabilizer both were delivered to the complainant. Annexure C-2 is not signed by the complainant. The OP has also not produced any such receipt to suggest if the stabilizer has also been delivered to the complainant. The Learned Counsel referred to Annexure R-1 and argued that the customer’s signature appear on this retail invoice but it may be mentioned that Annexure R-1 is regarding the purchase of the A.C. and the stabilizer and not regarding the delivery of the same by the OP to the complainant. It therefore shows that the stabilizer worth Rs.2,200/- has not been delivered to the complainant.
6] As regards the installation, the case of the OP is that they had been sending their officials to install the A.C. but she was not available at her house being busy in getting the treatment of her relative in the P.G.I. It is not their case, if they ever rang up the complainant on the phone number given in Annexure C-1 and R-1. When the complainant has already given them her phone number the question of the OP visiting her house without prior appointment appears to be a white lie. The phone number has been provided by the complainant at Annexure C-1 and R-1 for the purpose that she should be contacted before coming to her house. It appears the OP never bothered to install the A.C. and has now made up a false story by taking a clue from the complaint in which it is mentioned that the A.C. was purchased by the complainant as the Doctor advised to keep the patient, (her relative) in a cooler room. Had the contention of the OP been true, they would have sent a reply and mentioned this fact in reply to the notice Annexure C-4, which was issued to them on 20.05.09. Annexure C-5 is the courier receipt. We are therefore of the opinion that the contention of the complainant is correct to the effect that the OP did not come to her residence to install the A.C. for about 3 months.
7] It is then argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that subsequently the complainant purchased another stabilizer for Rs.1,800/- on 9.07.09 and got it installed by paying Rs.7,00/-. The complainant waited for the OP indefinitely and had to purchase the stabilizer and get the A.C. installed by paying extra charges which should be paid by the OP to the complainant.
8] Since the OP has failed to install the A.C. promptly and the entire summer season of the complainant was spoiled, even inspite of the fact that the complainant had already made the part payment to the OP. We are of the opinion that the OP should pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
9] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation, refund Rs.2,200/- as the price of the stabilizer charged by them and Rs.7,00/- towards installation charges i.e. a total of Rs.12,900/-. However since the complainant owes them Rs.10,000/- the said amount shall be set off against the amount of compensation and remaining amount of Rs.2,900/- shall be paid by the OP to the complainant alongwith Rs.2,200/- as against costs of litigation. The entire amount should be paid with in 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same with penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 1.06.09, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
Click here to Become Premium Member