Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/110/2022

MAHI PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

RAJENDER SINGH RANAWAT

26 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	110 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	03.08.2022
Date of Order	:	26.10.2022

 

Mahi Pal Singh, aged about ___ years son of Shri Kalam Singh, resident of House No.3344, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh

.…..Appellant /Complainant.

Versus

1.     L.G. Electronics India Private Limited, Registered Office at A Wing, 3rd Floor, D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.

2.      L.G. Electronics India Private Limited, Plot No.192-194, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized person.

3.      Surindra Audio Video Centre, SCF No.2062, 60, Opposite Flat No.510, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh through its proprietor/Authorized person.

4.      L.G. Service Centre, Plot No.57, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Authorized person.

                                                                   …Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

                MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

Sh. Rajinder Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 15.06.2022, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh, vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.1067 of 2019.

2.                The facts of the case are as follows :-

                   The grievance of the complainant before the District Commission that he purchased two Air Conditioners, Model LG Split A.C. on 05.06.2019 from Opposite Party No.2 for a total sum of Rs.76,000/- vide bill (Annexure C-1) but after some time of installation, the said air conditioners started giving problem, for which, he informed authorized service centre of the Company i.e. Opposite Party No.3 (Respondent No.4 in the present appeal). It was stated that the concerned person of Opposite Party No.2 (Surindra Audio Video Centre) – respondent No.3 in the present appeal, visited the house of the complainant for inspection of the air conditioners several times for resolving the problem, as the said air conditioners were not working properly for cooling and its indoor unit was leaking regularly. It was further stated that the Engineer of authorized service centre rectified the said problem and stated that there is manufacturing defect. It has also been alleged that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested to replace the said air conditioner or refund the amount but the Opposite Parties kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or another. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed for the redressal of his grievances.  

3.                In their  written  statement,  the  Opposite Parties have denied all the allegations in the complaint and raised the following contentions :-

                    It has been stated that there is no manufacturing defect or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The air conditioners were installed in two separate locations as directed by the complainant. On the first complaint received from the complainant, the complaint was about the cooling issue in one of the air conditioners. It was observed that the air conditioner was working properly but due to large room size of the room as compared to tonnage of the air conditioner being 1 Ton, it was advised to the complainant to get replaced the existing 1 Ton air conditioner with 1.5 Ton capacity by paying the difference amount of Rs.5452/-. However, the complainant was adamant for replacement of 1 Ton with 1.5 Ton capacity without paying any extra amount. Few months later, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for some issue in their second air conditioner, for which, the Service Engineer was deputed. He observed that the air conditioner required service, which was done to the satisfaction of the complainant and he also signed the job sheet. The Opposite Parties have also stated that the complainant was again contacted vide letter dated 29.11.2019 regarding replacement of 1 Ton with 1.5 Ton air conditioner by paying the difference amount. It was further stated that neither there was any manufacturing defect in the air conditioners nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

4.                Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.

5.                The District Commission after going through the documents on record and arguments addressed, dismissed the complaint by observing as under :-

“10.    At any rate, the onus to prove that the ACs were having manufacturing defect lies on the Complainant. However, the Complainant has miserably failed to adduce any cogent, convincing and reliable documentary evidence, much less any technical report/opinion from any expert, to substantiate his claim that the ACs were suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. In the absence of which, the assertions made by the Complainant are bald and thus, cannot be believed. 

11.     Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

6.                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the concerned District Commission, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                 We have heard Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

8.                Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the learned District Commission has failed to take into consideration the facts regarding room is big in size but they did not mention the room size. Also the respondents/Opposite Parties were ready to replace the air conditioners after paying the difference amount, is an ample proof that the air conditioners were defective. He further submitted that both the air conditioners were under warranty period so that question of outer side report/engineer does not arise at all. He further prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.   

9.                Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the air conditioners as such, the District Commission rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

10.              Alongwith the appeal, the appellant/complainant filed application bearing No.601 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 4 days in filing the appeal.

                   In view of reasons mentioned in the application, the delay stands condoned. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

11.              On going through the record, we find that the complainant purchased two air conditioners “LG Split AC” for an amount of Rs.76,000/-, as per the invoice dated 05.06.2019 (Annexure C-1) which were installed, as directed by the complainant at House No.3344, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh and second one at H.No.2924/1, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. The appellant/complainant for the first time raised the matter regarding cooling in one of the air conditioners installed at Sector 46-C, Chandigarh. In response thereto, Area Service Manager visited the place and concluded that the air conditioner was functioning perfectly, however, due to the large room size as compared to the capacity of air conditioner, which was 1 Ton, it took longer time for the room to be cooled. Therefore, the Area Service Manager gave an opportunity to the complainant as a goodwill gesture to replace the existing air conditioner with a new one having 1.5 Ton capacity by paying the difference amount of Rs.5452/-. However, the complainant insisted for replacement of air conditioner without paying any extra amount. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties were served a legal notice dated 24.09.2019.

12.              About the 2^nd Air Conditioner installed at H.No.2924/1, Sector 47, Chandigarh, it has been observed from the job sheet dated 21.11.2019, there was some problem of water leakage in the air conditioner. The problem was rectified. Even the complainant after getting satisfied also signed the job sheet, which is attached as Exhibit R-1 (attached with Lower Commission record). Moreover, the respondents/Opposite Parties offered for replacement of the air conditioner from 1 Ton to 1.5 Ton by paying difference of Rs.5452/- but he did not agree. So, we are of the view that the allegation levelled by the complainant has no value at all and the same stands rejected.

13.              The complainant has also complained that the air conditioners are having a manufacturing defect. However, the complainant has not been able to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence of the technical lab expert to justify his claim.

14.              For the reasons recorded above, it can be concluded that whenever the complaint was made, it was expeditiously attended by the Opposite Parties. The appellant/complainant failed to avail the proposal given by the Opposite Parties for replacing 1 ton air conditioner with 1.5 ton air conditioner by paying the additional amount of Rs.5452/-. He was also unable to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. The complainant has been unable to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or they adopted any unfair trade practice.

15.              In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.

16.              Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.

17.              The file be consigned to record room after completion.

Pronounced.

26.10.2022.                                                               Sd/-                                                        

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER