| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 275 of 11-10-2018 Decided on : 19-05-2022 Uday Kumar aged about 29 years S/o Muneshwar Thakur R/o H. No. 265, Guru Nanakpura Mohalla, Rampura Phul, District. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd., Phase-1, Plot No. 167, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through its Prop./Manager/M.D./Partner/Incharge Luxmi Sales, # 16759, Street No. 1/1, Sarabha Nagar, Bhatti Road, Opp. Bansal Cancer Hospital, Bathinda, through its Prop./ Manager/ Partner/ Incharge
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. K.A. Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Tejinder Singh, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Uday Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 is manufacture of Lloyd Air conditioner (AC) and opposite party No. 2 is the dealer/distributor of opposite party No.1 and sells the AC and other electronic items of opposite party No.l. It is alleged that complainant purchased one Split AC Lloyd 1.0 ton LS13A50A-W HSN/SAC code 8415, on 17.3.2018 vide invoice No. 195 for Rs. 26,000/- from opposite party No. 2. At the time of purchase of said AC, opposite party No. 2 provided sufficient warranty to complainant on behalf of opposite party No. 1. AC was installed in the shop of complainant situated at street No. l8, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, which is being run by complainant for his livelihood. The complainant alleged that after sometimes, from the date of purchase, the said AC stopped working and cooling. The complainant lodged complaints with the opposite parties through e-mail and at toll free No. 18001039485 of opposite party No.1. The employee/technician of the opposite parties checked the AC, but the defect was not rectified. When the employee/technician did not succeed to rectify the defect, then they declared that there is manufacturing defect in the A.C. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite parties many times and requested them to replace the AC or refund its cost, but to no effect. Now the AC is of no use as there is manufacturing defect in the AC. The opposite parties have given the request IDs on every complaint. Due to the said act of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration harassment and also financial loss, for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective AC with new one or refund the price of AC and also pay to complainant Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the business of consumer durable of Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd., has been taken over by Havells India Ltd. Therefore the present reply is being filed on behalf of Havells India Ltd. That the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process of this Commission. That the complaint has not been supported by any expert report in order to prove any manufacturing defect and that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as he has purchased the AC for hair dressing and saloon shop which is for commercial purpose. On merits, it has been pleaded that shop where AC is installed is measuring about 9 X 18 Sq Ft. for which 2 ton AC is required instead of 1 ton AC, as got installed by complainant. The opposite parties have also pleaded that opposite party No. 1 never denied services to the customer and is always ready and willing to provide service and repair/rectify if at all there is any problem in the unit subject to warranty terms and conditions. It has been further pleaded that the opposite parties received 3 complaints from the customer. All the calls were duly attended by the technician of opposite party No.1 and no technical issue was found in the unit. The complainant has not produced any expert opinion regarding any manufacturing defect. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-4) and documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S R Arora (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/5. The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as pleaded in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, admitted fact of the parties is that complainant purchased 1.00 Ton Split AC for Rs. 26,000/- on 17-3-2018 from opposite party No. 2 vide Invoice Ex. C-1. The grudge of the complainant is that AC in question is not cooling properly. To prove, that many complaints were lodged by complainant, the complainant has placed on file a sheet Ex. C-3, but this document does not reveal date when complaints were lodged or attended to. Moreover, in this sheet two Unique KKG Code FL2844 and KS 2424 have been mentioned which reveals that complainant lodged two types of complaints in the A.C. i.e. drain problem of AC and AC not working. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written version that complainant lodged three complaints. To prove this, the opposite parties have placed on file documents Ex. OP-2/5 which show that complainant lodged complaints on 1-9-2018, 7-9-2018 and 22-9-2018. Complaint of 1-9-2018 regarding drain problem was attended on 3-9-2018 and gas was charged (Ex. OP-1/2), complaint of 7-9-2018 regarding 'Not Working' was attended on 14-9-2018 and wet service was done (Ex. OP-1/3) and complaint lodged on 22-9-2018 regarding 'Not Working' was attended on 9-10-2018 (Ex. OP-1/4), but remarks given by Technician Nirmal Singh is that 'customer refuse to KKG, so call waste meaning thereby that since the complainant was not satisfied with the service he refused to share Uniquie KKG code, which was supposed to be shared after customer's satisfaction. Thus, aforesaid documents reveal that complainant purchased AC on 17-3-2018 and first complaint was lodged by him in August/September, 2018 within short span of time that too within guarantee/warranty period. The main allegation of the complainant is that AC is not cooling properly. Hence, the purpose for which he got installed A.C was not served. Complaint lodged by complainant within short span of time itself proved that there is some defect in the AC, if not manufacturing defect. The complainant must have suffered harassment due to less cooling. The defects in the A.C. have arisen during guarantee/warranty period of the A.C. The opposite parties were bound to repair the A.C. to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, which they failed to do so and under compelled circumstances, complainant knocked the door of this Commission. The plea taken by opposite parties that shop where AC is installed is measuring about 9 X 18 Sq Ft. for which 2 ton AC is required instead of 1 ton AC, as got installed by complainant, is not tenable because the technicians of the opposite parties have mentioned nothing in this regard in the job sheets (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4) issued at the time of service of the A.C. in question nor the opposite parties brought any evidence to this effect. Otherwise also, being expert, opposite parties would not have installed the said A.C if it was not sufficient to cool the room. Thus, this plea is an after thought and has no value in the eyes of law. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not providing proper service to the complainant. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with Rs.8,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to repair the A.C. in question of the complainant and to remove the defects. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced : 19-5-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
| |
