Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/38

Bharat Bhushan Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.s. Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Singh Dhingra

03 Mar 2020

ORDER

  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

      Complaint No. :           38 of 2019

      Date of Institution :     15.02.2019

       Date of Decision :       03.03.2020

Bharat Bhushan Goyal, aged about 32 years, son of Roshan Lal Goyal, resident of New Cantt Road, Street No.5/5, Faridkot, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. J. S. Electronics, through its Prop. at Circular Road, Valmiki Chowk, Faridkot.
2. Havells India Ltd., at 904, Surya Kiran Building, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001(Registered Office).
3. Havells India ltd., at QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Express Way, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh-201304 (Corporate Office).

......OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

cc no.-38 of 2019

Present:       Sh Mandeep Singh Dhingra, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Jarnail Singh, Proprietor/OP-1,

 Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to replace the defective Air Conditioner with new one or to refund the cost price of said AC and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on advice of OP-1, complainant purchased 1.5 ton Lloyd Split AC from OP-1 on 10.06.2018 vide bill no. 1366 for Rs.32,500/- and it was installed by mechanic of OPs at his residence, but just after few days of purchase, it started giving trouble to complainant and did not give proper cooling and then, complainant informed OP-1 about this fact, but he did not redress his grievance, rather misbehaved with complainant and asked him to do whatever he likes. Thereafter,

cc no.-38 of 2019

complainant lodged several complaints regarding this with Company on their customer care number from 13.07.2018 to 8.08.2018 and on 9.08.2018, Technician of OP-2 visited the house of complainant and told that AC would be checked by filling pressure and this process would take 24 hours. In this regard, complainant got a writing dated 9.08.2018 from said technician, but since then, nobody came to his house for checking the AC. Even legal notice dated 21.09.2018, issued by complainant to OPs through his counsel, also served no purpose. Complainant has suffered huge harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.02.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

cc no.-38 of 2019

4                                  On receipt of notice issued by this Forum, proprietor of OP-1 appeared in the Forum in person and filed written statement, wherein he has admitted before the Forum that air conditioner in question was sold by him to complainant. It is also admitted that it was installed by their authorised mechanic in the  house of complainant, but OP-1 has sternly denied the fact that complainant ever gave any report or made any complaint regarding defect in said AC and moreover, answering OP is not liable for any kind of guarantee or warrantee and issue regard defect if any arises, it can be resolved only by OP-2 and OP-3. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                             OP-2 and OP-3 filed written statement in the Forum through counsel, wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant was using the said AC at his grocery shop for commercial purpose and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground

cc no.-38 of 2019

and moreover, there is heavy footfall of customers in the shop of complainant and glass door of shop opens several times and even Deep Freezer, Coca Cola Fridge and huge stock of grocery available in shop also release heat. It is further averred that Service Engineer of answering OPs went twice to redress his grievance and he filled the gas without charging any cost and he found that temperature in his shop cannot be maintained due to availability of deep freezer, coca cola fridge and huge stock of grocery lying available in his shop and there is no defect in said air conditioner. However, on merits, OP-2 and OP-3 have reiterated the same pleadings as taken by them in preliminary objections and have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                        Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 17 and then, closed the evidence.

 

cc no.-38 of 2019

7                               To controvert the allegations of complainant, Jarnail Singh proprietor OP-1 tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex OP-1/1 and closed the evidence. Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harash Aggarwal Ex OP-2,3/1 and documents Ex OP-2,3/2 to Ex OP-2,3/3, but did not conclude his part of evidence despite availing several opportunities and therefore, on 24.02.2020, evidence of OP-2 and OP-3 was closed by order of this Forum.

8                                    We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                                   From the careful perusal of record and after thorough perusal of evidence and documents placed on record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased one AC from OP-1, which was manufactured by OP-2 and 3 against proper bill for Rs.32,500/- and said AC did not give cooling just after few days of purchase. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated

cc no.-38 of 2019

requests and issuance of legal notice, OPs did not do anything needful to repair or replace the said AC. He has prayed for directions to OPs to replace the said AC with new one or to refund the cost price of Rs.32,500/-alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses incurred by him. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-17. In reply, OP-1 submitted that he sold the said air conditioner to complainant but repair or services regarding defect in said AC were to be given by OP-2 and OP-3 and he is not liable for any kind of guarantee or warrantee and issue regard defect if any, can be resolved only by OP-2 and OP-3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. On the contrary, plea taken by OP-2 and OP-3 is that he was using the said AC at his grocery shop for commercial purpose and therefore, his complaint is not maintainable. As per OP-2 and 3, there is heavy footfall of customers in his shop and glass door of his shop opens several times. Deep Freezer, Coca Cola Fridge and huge stock of grocery available in shop also release heat and reduce the cooling. Their Service Engineer went to complainant two

cc no.-38 of 2019

times and he filled the gas without charging any cost. it is stressed that other electric appliance installed at said shop also lower the cooling of air conditioner. There is no defect in said air conditioner and it is further prayed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                           The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased an Air Conditioner from Ops, which did not give proper cooling. Complainant complained about this defect to OPs, but they have paid no heed on his genuine requests for redressal of his grievance. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased said air conditioner from OPs and there is also no denial on the part of OP-2 and 3 that cooling was not proper and complainant made complaint regarding this defect to them. Plea taken by OP-2 and 3 that said air conditioner is installed at his shop has no legs to stand upon as it does not affect the nature of his grievance. Grievance of the complainant is that air conditioner worth Rs.32,500/-purchased by him does not give cooling and act on the part of OP-2 and OP-3 in not paying heed to his

 

cc no.-38 of 2019

requests for improving cooling and in not providing proper repair services is not appropriate and it amounts to deficiency in service.

11                                        We have keenly considered the contentions in the light of evidence on record. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and OP-3. It is observed that OP-2 and 3 have been deficient in providing proper services to complainant at the time of his complaint regarding defect of less cooling. Had OP-2 and 3 taken effective and appropriate steps to enhance the cooling of said air conditioner by giving proper repairs at time of first complaint by complaint, there would have been no complaint. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 and OP-3 with direction to them to repair the AC of complainant free of cost and to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall

cc no.-38 of 2019

be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is observed that OP-1 is mere shopkeeper and he has no role in making repair of said air conditioner. Therefore, complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 03.03.2020             

 

 (Param Pal Kaur)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                             Member                             President