LLoyd V/S Deepak Garg - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Moga

CC/07/128

Deepak Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

LLoyd - Opp.Party(s)

IN-Person

23 May 2008

ORDER

distt.consumer moga
district consumer forum,moga
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/128

Deepak Garg						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Gian Rangwala Enterprises LLoyd						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Jagmohan Singh Chawla 2. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. IN-Person

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 128 of 2007. Instituted On: 04.10.2007. Date of Service: 05.11.2007. Decided On: 23.05.2008. Deepak son of Tarsem Lal, resident of Gali No.11, House No.1308, Opposite Nestle India Limited, Near Vedant Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 2. Gian Rangwala Enterprises, Gandhi Road, Moga through its partner. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Kuldeep Sahni,, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Op-1 exparte. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for OP-2 (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Deepak complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director (herein-after referred to as Lloyd) and another -opposite parties directing them to change the AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP with new one or to refund Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC in question and also to pay Rs.10000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Deepak complainant had purchased an AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 dated 26.06.2007 for Rs.17700/- from OP2-Gian Rangwala. That the OP2-Gian Rangwala did not provide the AC which was shown to him in their display. That the said AC installed in the premises of the complainant was not working properly. It was not cooling the room properly even after running a period of 7-8 hours. That the complainant has also contacted OP2-Gian Rangwala and Managing Director of OP1-Lloyd at Chandigarh and they deputed their engineer who checked the AC in question but could not trace any fault. That the AC in question is still out of order and the complainant is suffering lot of harassment. That both in law and equity, the complainant is entitled to get the AC changed with new one as the same is defective piece or to refund the amount of Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC paid by him. That the services rendered by the OPs are deficient and the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Lloyd served and appeared through Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP is manufacturer and OP2-Gian Rangwala was agent for selling their product. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill dated 26.6.2007. It was averred that the AC given to the complainant was shown to him and he approved the same. It was further averred that the answering OP manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. It was further averred that on the complaint of the complainant that the AC was not properly cooling, their engineer visited him and found that there was no problem with the unit. The complainant was advised to observe it for some time as the cooling was OK and the report was prepared by the engineer which was signed by the complainant. That after some time, the complainant again reported that the cooling of the AC in question was low. That the mechanic of OP1-Lloyd visited the spot and found that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so the unit was found normal. It is the normal practice that if the temperature at window outlet of the unit is 16o C then the working of the unit remains normal. However, the complainant made note on the job card that he was not fully satisfied. Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. Lateron, Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra, authorized signatory of OP1-Llyod did not appear and thus, the OP1-Llyod was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2007. 5. OP2-Gian Rangwala appeared through Sh.S.P.Gupta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was only the selling agent of OP1-Lloyad who is manufacturer of AC in question. On merits, it was averred that on 26.06.2007 the complainant purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 against payment. The AC given to the complainant was the same which was shown to him. It was wrong that the answering OP has not provided the complainant with AC which was displayed in their show room. Further, the OP2-Gian Rangwala took the same plea which was taken by OP1-Lloyd in their written reply. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP2-Gian Rangwala. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, product catalogue Ex.A3, copy of instruction manual Ex.A4 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP2-Gian Rangwala tendered the affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.P.Gupta ld.counsel for OP2-Gian Rangwala and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP2-Gian Rangwala has not given the model AC which was shown to the complainant in the brochure Ex.A3. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned even a word about brochure that the AC model shown to him in the brochure was not supplied by OP2-Gian Rangwala. Thus, the aforesaid argument of the ld.counsel for the complainant is out of the pleading and is an after-thought. We therefore, discard the same and hold that the AC shown to the complainant was the same which was sold to him. 10. Moreover, the OP1-Lloyd manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. The AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 26.6.2007 whereas the present complaint was filed on 4.10.2007. Had the OP2-Gian Rangwala sold some different model of the AC than shown to the complainant, he should not have got it installed in his house on the same date. It is highly improbable that after a period of more than 3 months, the complainant has come with a plea that the AC given to him was of different model than shown to him by the OP2-Gian Rangwala in his show room. 10. The evidence on the file further shows that the complainant had lodged a complaint with OP2-Gian Rangwala regarding its cooling. The OP2-Gian Rangwala deputed their engineer/technician who visited the house of the complainant to get the defect rectified. Ex.R3 is the complaint dated 7.8.2007 which shows that the AC was set OK and the same had no cooling problem as alleged by the complainant. This job card Ex.R3 has been duly signed by Deepak Garg complainant. Have his AC was not set OK on that day, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why Deepak Garg signed the same showing his satisfaction to the AC. Similarly, job card Ex.R2 dated 24.8.2007 shows that the complainant lodged a complaint which was duly rectified but the complainant gave note in Hindi that Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. Although in the job card Ex.R2 it is mentioned that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so no problem found in the set and the cooling was OK. The writing of the aforesaid remarks on Ex.R2 by the complainant show that the complainant had malafide intention to get replaced his AC. 11. During the pendancy of the complaint, on the request of both the counsel for the parties, this Forum sent engineer/ technician of the OPs who visited the spot and found the AC set OK, but the complainant/ customer refused to sign the job card for the reasons best known to him. Thus, it shows that the complainant was intentionally making the complaints without sufficient cause against the working of his AC. His only intention is to get back the price of the AC or to get the same replaced by new AC without any fault of the OPs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that his AC was not working properly or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 12. To support the aforesaid contention, the OP2-Gian Rangwala has produced affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. On the other hand, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 produced by the complainant can not be given any effect. 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:23.05.2008. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 128 of 2007. Instituted On: 04.10.2007. Date of Service: 05.11.2007. Decided On: 23.05.2008. Deepak son of Tarsem Lal, resident of Gali No.11, House No.1308, Opposite Nestle India Limited, Near Vedant Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 2. Gian Rangwala Enterprises, Gandhi Road, Moga through its partner. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Kuldeep Sahni,, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Op-1 exparte. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for OP-2 (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Deepak complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director (herein-after referred to as Lloyd) and another -opposite parties directing them to change the AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP with new one or to refund Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC in question and also to pay Rs.10000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Deepak complainant had purchased an AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 dated 26.06.2007 for Rs.17700/- from OP2-Gian Rangwala. That the OP2-Gian Rangwala did not provide the AC which was shown to him in their display. That the said AC installed in the premises of the complainant was not working properly. It was not cooling the room properly even after running a period of 7-8 hours. That the complainant has also contacted OP2-Gian Rangwala and Managing Director of OP1-Lloyd at Chandigarh and they deputed their engineer who checked the AC in question but could not trace any fault. That the AC in question is still out of order and the complainant is suffering lot of harassment. That both in law and equity, the complainant is entitled to get the AC changed with new one as the same is defective piece or to refund the amount of Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC paid by him. That the services rendered by the OPs are deficient and the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Lloyd served and appeared through Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP is manufacturer and OP2-Gian Rangwala was agent for selling their product. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill dated 26.6.2007. It was averred that the AC given to the complainant was shown to him and he approved the same. It was further averred that the answering OP manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. It was further averred that on the complaint of the complainant that the AC was not properly cooling, their engineer visited him and found that there was no problem with the unit. The complainant was advised to observe it for some time as the cooling was OK and the report was prepared by the engineer which was signed by the complainant. That after some time, the complainant again reported that the cooling of the AC in question was low. That the mechanic of OP1-Lloyd visited the spot and found that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so the unit was found normal. It is the normal practice that if the temperature at window outlet of the unit is 16o C then the working of the unit remains normal. However, the complainant made note on the job card that he was not fully satisfied. Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. Lateron, Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra, authorized signatory of OP1-Llyod did not appear and thus, the OP1-Llyod was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2007. 5. OP2-Gian Rangwala appeared through Sh.S.P.Gupta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was only the selling agent of OP1-Lloyad who is manufacturer of AC in question. On merits, it was averred that on 26.06.2007 the complainant purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 against payment. The AC given to the complainant was the same which was shown to him. It was wrong that the answering OP has not provided the complainant with AC which was displayed in their show room. Further, the OP2-Gian Rangwala took the same plea which was taken by OP1-Lloyd in their written reply. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP2-Gian Rangwala. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, product catalogue Ex.A3, copy of instruction manual Ex.A4 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP2-Gian Rangwala tendered the affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.P.Gupta ld.counsel for OP2-Gian Rangwala and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP2-Gian Rangwala has not given the model AC which was shown to the complainant in the brochure Ex.A3. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned even a word about brochure that the AC model shown to him in the brochure was not supplied by OP2-Gian Rangwala. Thus, the aforesaid argument of the ld.counsel for the complainant is out of the pleading and is an after-thought. We therefore, discard the same and hold that the AC shown to the complainant was the same which was sold to him. 10. Moreover, the OP1-Lloyd manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. The AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 26.6.2007 whereas the present complaint was filed on 4.10.2007. Had the OP2-Gian Rangwala sold some different model of the AC than shown to the complainant, he should not have got it installed in his house on the same date. It is highly improbable that after a period of more than 3 months, the complainant has come with a plea that the AC given to him was of different model than shown to him by the OP2-Gian Rangwala in his show room. 10. The evidence on the file further shows that the complainant had lodged a complaint with OP2-Gian Rangwala regarding its cooling. The OP2-Gian Rangwala deputed their engineer/technician who visited the house of the complainant to get the defect rectified. Ex.R3 is the complaint dated 7.8.2007 which shows that the AC was set OK and the same had no cooling problem as alleged by the complainant. This job card Ex.R3 has been duly signed by Deepak Garg complainant. Have his AC was not set OK on that day, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why Deepak Garg signed the same showing his satisfaction to the AC. Similarly, job card Ex.R2 dated 24.8.2007 shows that the complainant lodged a complaint which was duly rectified but the complainant gave note in Hindi that Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. Although in the job card Ex.R2 it is mentioned that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so no problem found in the set and the cooling was OK. The writing of the aforesaid remarks on Ex.R2 by the complainant show that the complainant had malafide intention to get replaced his AC. 11. During the pendancy of the complaint, on the request of both the counsel for the parties, this Forum sent engineer/ technician of the OPs who visited the spot and found the AC set OK, but the complainant/ customer refused to sign the job card for the reasons best known to him. Thus, it shows that the complainant was intentionally making the complaints without sufficient cause against the working of his AC. His only intention is to get back the price of the AC or to get the same replaced by new AC without any fault of the OPs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that his AC was not working properly or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 12. To support the aforesaid contention, the OP2-Gian Rangwala has produced affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. On the other hand, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 produced by the complainant can not be given any effect. 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:23.05.2008. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 128 of 2007. Instituted On: 04.10.2007. Date of Service: 05.11.2007. Decided On: 23.05.2008. Deepak son of Tarsem Lal, resident of Gali No.11, House No.1308, Opposite Nestle India Limited, Near Vedant Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 2. Gian Rangwala Enterprises, Gandhi Road, Moga through its partner. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Kuldeep Sahni,, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Op-1 exparte. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for OP-2 (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Deepak complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director (herein-after referred to as Lloyd) and another -opposite parties directing them to change the AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP with new one or to refund Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC in question and also to pay Rs.10000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Deepak complainant had purchased an AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 dated 26.06.2007 for Rs.17700/- from OP2-Gian Rangwala. That the OP2-Gian Rangwala did not provide the AC which was shown to him in their display. That the said AC installed in the premises of the complainant was not working properly. It was not cooling the room properly even after running a period of 7-8 hours. That the complainant has also contacted OP2-Gian Rangwala and Managing Director of OP1-Lloyd at Chandigarh and they deputed their engineer who checked the AC in question but could not trace any fault. That the AC in question is still out of order and the complainant is suffering lot of harassment. That both in law and equity, the complainant is entitled to get the AC changed with new one as the same is defective piece or to refund the amount of Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC paid by him. That the services rendered by the OPs are deficient and the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Lloyd served and appeared through Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP is manufacturer and OP2-Gian Rangwala was agent for selling their product. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill dated 26.6.2007. It was averred that the AC given to the complainant was shown to him and he approved the same. It was further averred that the answering OP manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. It was further averred that on the complaint of the complainant that the AC was not properly cooling, their engineer visited him and found that there was no problem with the unit. The complainant was advised to observe it for some time as the cooling was OK and the report was prepared by the engineer which was signed by the complainant. That after some time, the complainant again reported that the cooling of the AC in question was low. That the mechanic of OP1-Lloyd visited the spot and found that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so the unit was found normal. It is the normal practice that if the temperature at window outlet of the unit is 16o C then the working of the unit remains normal. However, the complainant made note on the job card that he was not fully satisfied. Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. Lateron, Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra, authorized signatory of OP1-Llyod did not appear and thus, the OP1-Llyod was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2007. 5. OP2-Gian Rangwala appeared through Sh.S.P.Gupta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was only the selling agent of OP1-Lloyad who is manufacturer of AC in question. On merits, it was averred that on 26.06.2007 the complainant purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 against payment. The AC given to the complainant was the same which was shown to him. It was wrong that the answering OP has not provided the complainant with AC which was displayed in their show room. Further, the OP2-Gian Rangwala took the same plea which was taken by OP1-Lloyd in their written reply. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP2-Gian Rangwala. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, product catalogue Ex.A3, copy of instruction manual Ex.A4 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP2-Gian Rangwala tendered the affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.P.Gupta ld.counsel for OP2-Gian Rangwala and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP2-Gian Rangwala has not given the model AC which was shown to the complainant in the brochure Ex.A3. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned even a word about brochure that the AC model shown to him in the brochure was not supplied by OP2-Gian Rangwala. Thus, the aforesaid argument of the ld.counsel for the complainant is out of the pleading and is an after-thought. We therefore, discard the same and hold that the AC shown to the complainant was the same which was sold to him. 10. Moreover, the OP1-Lloyd manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. The AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 26.6.2007 whereas the present complaint was filed on 4.10.2007. Had the OP2-Gian Rangwala sold some different model of the AC than shown to the complainant, he should not have got it installed in his house on the same date. It is highly improbable that after a period of more than 3 months, the complainant has come with a plea that the AC given to him was of different model than shown to him by the OP2-Gian Rangwala in his show room. 10. The evidence on the file further shows that the complainant had lodged a complaint with OP2-Gian Rangwala regarding its cooling. The OP2-Gian Rangwala deputed their engineer/technician who visited the house of the complainant to get the defect rectified. Ex.R3 is the complaint dated 7.8.2007 which shows that the AC was set OK and the same had no cooling problem as alleged by the complainant. This job card Ex.R3 has been duly signed by Deepak Garg complainant. Have his AC was not set OK on that day, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why Deepak Garg signed the same showing his satisfaction to the AC. Similarly, job card Ex.R2 dated 24.8.2007 shows that the complainant lodged a complaint which was duly rectified but the complainant gave note in Hindi that Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. Although in the job card Ex.R2 it is mentioned that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so no problem found in the set and the cooling was OK. The writing of the aforesaid remarks on Ex.R2 by the complainant show that the complainant had malafide intention to get replaced his AC. 11. During the pendancy of the complaint, on the request of both the counsel for the parties, this Forum sent engineer/ technician of the OPs who visited the spot and found the AC set OK, but the complainant/ customer refused to sign the job card for the reasons best known to him. Thus, it shows that the complainant was intentionally making the complaints without sufficient cause against the working of his AC. His only intention is to get back the price of the AC or to get the same replaced by new AC without any fault of the OPs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that his AC was not working properly or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 12. To support the aforesaid contention, the OP2-Gian Rangwala has produced affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. On the other hand, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 produced by the complainant can not be given any effect. 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:23.05.2008.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 128 of 2007. Instituted On: 04.10.2007. Date of Service: 05.11.2007. Decided On: 23.05.2008. Deepak son of Tarsem Lal, resident of Gali No.11, House No.1308, Opposite Nestle India Limited, Near Vedant Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 2. Gian Rangwala Enterprises, Gandhi Road, Moga through its partner. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Kuldeep Sahni,, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Op-1 exparte. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for OP-2 (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Deepak complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director (herein-after referred to as Lloyd) and another -opposite parties directing them to change the AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP with new one or to refund Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC in question and also to pay Rs.10000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Deepak complainant had purchased an AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 dated 26.06.2007 for Rs.17700/- from OP2-Gian Rangwala. That the OP2-Gian Rangwala did not provide the AC which was shown to him in their display. That the said AC installed in the premises of the complainant was not working properly. It was not cooling the room properly even after running a period of 7-8 hours. That the complainant has also contacted OP2-Gian Rangwala and Managing Director of OP1-Lloyd at Chandigarh and they deputed their engineer who checked the AC in question but could not trace any fault. That the AC in question is still out of order and the complainant is suffering lot of harassment. That both in law and equity, the complainant is entitled to get the AC changed with new one as the same is defective piece or to refund the amount of Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC paid by him. That the services rendered by the OPs are deficient and the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Lloyd served and appeared through Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP is manufacturer and OP2-Gian Rangwala was agent for selling their product. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill dated 26.6.2007. It was averred that the AC given to the complainant was shown to him and he approved the same. It was further averred that the answering OP manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. It was further averred that on the complaint of the complainant that the AC was not properly cooling, their engineer visited him and found that there was no problem with the unit. The complainant was advised to observe it for some time as the cooling was OK and the report was prepared by the engineer which was signed by the complainant. That after some time, the complainant again reported that the cooling of the AC in question was low. That the mechanic of OP1-Lloyd visited the spot and found that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so the unit was found normal. It is the normal practice that if the temperature at window outlet of the unit is 16o C then the working of the unit remains normal. However, the complainant made note on the job card that he was not fully satisfied. Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. Lateron, Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra, authorized signatory of OP1-Llyod did not appear and thus, the OP1-Llyod was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2007. 5. OP2-Gian Rangwala appeared through Sh.S.P.Gupta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was only the selling agent of OP1-Lloyad who is manufacturer of AC in question. On merits, it was averred that on 26.06.2007 the complainant purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 against payment. The AC given to the complainant was the same which was shown to him. It was wrong that the answering OP has not provided the complainant with AC which was displayed in their show room. Further, the OP2-Gian Rangwala took the same plea which was taken by OP1-Lloyd in their written reply. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP2-Gian Rangwala. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, product catalogue Ex.A3, copy of instruction manual Ex.A4 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP2-Gian Rangwala tendered the affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.P.Gupta ld.counsel for OP2-Gian Rangwala and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP2-Gian Rangwala has not given the model AC which was shown to the complainant in the brochure Ex.A3. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned even a word about brochure that the AC model shown to him in the brochure was not supplied by OP2-Gian Rangwala. Thus, the aforesaid argument of the ld.counsel for the complainant is out of the pleading and is an after-thought. We therefore, discard the same and hold that the AC shown to the complainant was the same which was sold to him. 10. Moreover, the OP1-Lloyd manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. The AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 26.6.2007 whereas the present complaint was filed on 4.10.2007. Had the OP2-Gian Rangwala sold some different model of the AC than shown to the complainant, he should not have got it installed in his house on the same date. It is highly improbable that after a period of more than 3 months, the complainant has come with a plea that the AC given to him was of different model than shown to him by the OP2-Gian Rangwala in his show room. 10. The evidence on the file further shows that the complainant had lodged a complaint with OP2-Gian Rangwala regarding its cooling. The OP2-Gian Rangwala deputed their engineer/technician who visited the house of the complainant to get the defect rectified. Ex.R3 is the complaint dated 7.8.2007 which shows that the AC was set OK and the same had no cooling problem as alleged by the complainant. This job card Ex.R3 has been duly signed by Deepak Garg complainant. Have his AC was not set OK on that day, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why Deepak Garg signed the same showing his satisfaction to the AC. Similarly, job card Ex.R2 dated 24.8.2007 shows that the complainant lodged a complaint which was duly rectified but the complainant gave note in Hindi that Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. Although in the job card Ex.R2 it is mentioned that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so no problem found in the set and the cooling was OK. The writing of the aforesaid remarks on Ex.R2 by the complainant show that the complainant had malafide intention to get replaced his AC. 11. During the pendancy of the complaint, on the request of both the counsel for the parties, this Forum sent engineer/ technician of the OPs who visited the spot and found the AC set OK, but the complainant/ customer refused to sign the job card for the reasons best known to him. Thus, it shows that the complainant was intentionally making the complaints without sufficient cause against the working of his AC. His only intention is to get back the price of the AC or to get the same replaced by new AC without any fault of the OPs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that his AC was not working properly or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 12. To support the aforesaid contention, the OP2-Gian Rangwala has produced affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. On the other hand, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 produced by the complainant can not be given any effect. 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:23.05.2008. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 128 of 2007. Instituted On: 04.10.2007. Date of Service: 05.11.2007. Decided On: 23.05.2008. Deepak son of Tarsem Lal, resident of Gali No.11, House No.1308, Opposite Nestle India Limited, Near Vedant Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 2. Gian Rangwala Enterprises, Gandhi Road, Moga through its partner. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Kuldeep Sahni,, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Op-1 exparte. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for OP-2 (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Deepak complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director (herein-after referred to as Lloyd) and another -opposite parties directing them to change the AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP with new one or to refund Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC in question and also to pay Rs.10000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Deepak complainant had purchased an AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 dated 26.06.2007 for Rs.17700/- from OP2-Gian Rangwala. That the OP2-Gian Rangwala did not provide the AC which was shown to him in their display. That the said AC installed in the premises of the complainant was not working properly. It was not cooling the room properly even after running a period of 7-8 hours. That the complainant has also contacted OP2-Gian Rangwala and Managing Director of OP1-Lloyd at Chandigarh and they deputed their engineer who checked the AC in question but could not trace any fault. That the AC in question is still out of order and the complainant is suffering lot of harassment. That both in law and equity, the complainant is entitled to get the AC changed with new one as the same is defective piece or to refund the amount of Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC paid by him. That the services rendered by the OPs are deficient and the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Lloyd served and appeared through Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP is manufacturer and OP2-Gian Rangwala was agent for selling their product. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill dated 26.6.2007. It was averred that the AC given to the complainant was shown to him and he approved the same. It was further averred that the answering OP manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. It was further averred that on the complaint of the complainant that the AC was not properly cooling, their engineer visited him and found that there was no problem with the unit. The complainant was advised to observe it for some time as the cooling was OK and the report was prepared by the engineer which was signed by the complainant. That after some time, the complainant again reported that the cooling of the AC in question was low. That the mechanic of OP1-Lloyd visited the spot and found that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so the unit was found normal. It is the normal practice that if the temperature at window outlet of the unit is 16o C then the working of the unit remains normal. However, the complainant made note on the job card that he was not fully satisfied. Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. Lateron, Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra, authorized signatory of OP1-Llyod did not appear and thus, the OP1-Llyod was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2007. 5. OP2-Gian Rangwala appeared through Sh.S.P.Gupta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was only the selling agent of OP1-Lloyad who is manufacturer of AC in question. On merits, it was averred that on 26.06.2007 the complainant purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 against payment. The AC given to the complainant was the same which was shown to him. It was wrong that the answering OP has not provided the complainant with AC which was displayed in their show room. Further, the OP2-Gian Rangwala took the same plea which was taken by OP1-Lloyd in their written reply. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP2-Gian Rangwala. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, product catalogue Ex.A3, copy of instruction manual Ex.A4 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP2-Gian Rangwala tendered the affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.P.Gupta ld.counsel for OP2-Gian Rangwala and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP2-Gian Rangwala has not given the model AC which was shown to the complainant in the brochure Ex.A3. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned even a word about brochure that the AC model shown to him in the brochure was not supplied by OP2-Gian Rangwala. Thus, the aforesaid argument of the ld.counsel for the complainant is out of the pleading and is an after-thought. We therefore, discard the same and hold that the AC shown to the complainant was the same which was sold to him. 10. Moreover, the OP1-Lloyd manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. The AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 26.6.2007 whereas the present complaint was filed on 4.10.2007. Had the OP2-Gian Rangwala sold some different model of the AC than shown to the complainant, he should not have got it installed in his house on the same date. It is highly improbable that after a period of more than 3 months, the complainant has come with a plea that the AC given to him was of different model than shown to him by the OP2-Gian Rangwala in his show room. 10. The evidence on the file further shows that the complainant had lodged a complaint with OP2-Gian Rangwala regarding its cooling. The OP2-Gian Rangwala deputed their engineer/technician who visited the house of the complainant to get the defect rectified. Ex.R3 is the complaint dated 7.8.2007 which shows that the AC was set OK and the same had no cooling problem as alleged by the complainant. This job card Ex.R3 has been duly signed by Deepak Garg complainant. Have his AC was not set OK on that day, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why Deepak Garg signed the same showing his satisfaction to the AC. Similarly, job card Ex.R2 dated 24.8.2007 shows that the complainant lodged a complaint which was duly rectified but the complainant gave note in Hindi that Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. Although in the job card Ex.R2 it is mentioned that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so no problem found in the set and the cooling was OK. The writing of the aforesaid remarks on Ex.R2 by the complainant show that the complainant had malafide intention to get replaced his AC. 11. During the pendancy of the complaint, on the request of both the counsel for the parties, this Forum sent engineer/ technician of the OPs who visited the spot and found the AC set OK, but the complainant/ customer refused to sign the job card for the reasons best known to him. Thus, it shows that the complainant was intentionally making the complaints without sufficient cause against the working of his AC. His only intention is to get back the price of the AC or to get the same replaced by new AC without any fault of the OPs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that his AC was not working properly or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 12. To support the aforesaid contention, the OP2-Gian Rangwala has produced affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. On the other hand, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 produced by the complainant can not be given any effect. 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:23.05.2008. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 128 of 2007. Instituted On: 04.10.2007. Date of Service: 05.11.2007. Decided On: 23.05.2008. Deepak son of Tarsem Lal, resident of Gali No.11, House No.1308, Opposite Nestle India Limited, Near Vedant Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director. 2. Gian Rangwala Enterprises, Gandhi Road, Moga through its partner. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Kuldeep Sahni,, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Op-1 exparte. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for OP-2 (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Deepak complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Lloyd, Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director (herein-after referred to as Lloyd) and another -opposite parties directing them to change the AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP with new one or to refund Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC in question and also to pay Rs.10000/- as damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Deepak complainant had purchased an AC 1.5 Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 dated 26.06.2007 for Rs.17700/- from OP2-Gian Rangwala. That the OP2-Gian Rangwala did not provide the AC which was shown to him in their display. That the said AC installed in the premises of the complainant was not working properly. It was not cooling the room properly even after running a period of 7-8 hours. That the complainant has also contacted OP2-Gian Rangwala and Managing Director of OP1-Lloyd at Chandigarh and they deputed their engineer who checked the AC in question but could not trace any fault. That the AC in question is still out of order and the complainant is suffering lot of harassment. That both in law and equity, the complainant is entitled to get the AC changed with new one as the same is defective piece or to refund the amount of Rs.17700/- i.e. the price of AC paid by him. That the services rendered by the OPs are deficient and the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Lloyd served and appeared through Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP is manufacturer and OP2-Gian Rangwala was agent for selling their product. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill dated 26.6.2007. It was averred that the AC given to the complainant was shown to him and he approved the same. It was further averred that the answering OP manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. It was further averred that on the complaint of the complainant that the AC was not properly cooling, their engineer visited him and found that there was no problem with the unit. The complainant was advised to observe it for some time as the cooling was OK and the report was prepared by the engineer which was signed by the complainant. That after some time, the complainant again reported that the cooling of the AC in question was low. That the mechanic of OP1-Lloyd visited the spot and found that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so the unit was found normal. It is the normal practice that if the temperature at window outlet of the unit is 16o C then the working of the unit remains normal. However, the complainant made note on the job card that he was not fully satisfied. Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. All other allegations contained in the complaint were denied being wrong and denied. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous has no merit and it deserves dismissal. 4. Lateron, Sh.Balwinder Singh Chhabra, authorized signatory of OP1-Llyod did not appear and thus, the OP1-Llyod was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2007. 5. OP2-Gian Rangwala appeared through Sh.S.P.Gupta Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the answering OP was only the selling agent of OP1-Lloyad who is manufacturer of AC in question. On merits, it was averred that on 26.06.2007 the complainant purchased one AC 1.5 Ton make Lloyd FL-18 WACLP vide bill no.65 against payment. The AC given to the complainant was the same which was shown to him. It was wrong that the answering OP has not provided the complainant with AC which was displayed in their show room. Further, the OP2-Gian Rangwala took the same plea which was taken by OP1-Lloyd in their written reply. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP2-Gian Rangwala. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed. 6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, product catalogue Ex.A3, copy of instruction manual Ex.A4 and closed his evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP2-Gian Rangwala tendered the affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 8. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.P.Gupta ld.counsel for OP2-Gian Rangwala and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 9. Sh.Kuldeep Sahni ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP2-Gian Rangwala has not given the model AC which was shown to the complainant in the brochure Ex.A3. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned even a word about brochure that the AC model shown to him in the brochure was not supplied by OP2-Gian Rangwala. Thus, the aforesaid argument of the ld.counsel for the complainant is out of the pleading and is an after-thought. We therefore, discard the same and hold that the AC shown to the complainant was the same which was sold to him. 10. Moreover, the OP1-Lloyd manufactures only two type of window AC which are known as Economy Model FL18 WACLE and Premium Model FL18 WACLP. The AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 26.6.2007 whereas the present complaint was filed on 4.10.2007. Had the OP2-Gian Rangwala sold some different model of the AC than shown to the complainant, he should not have got it installed in his house on the same date. It is highly improbable that after a period of more than 3 months, the complainant has come with a plea that the AC given to him was of different model than shown to him by the OP2-Gian Rangwala in his show room. 10. The evidence on the file further shows that the complainant had lodged a complaint with OP2-Gian Rangwala regarding its cooling. The OP2-Gian Rangwala deputed their engineer/technician who visited the house of the complainant to get the defect rectified. Ex.R3 is the complaint dated 7.8.2007 which shows that the AC was set OK and the same had no cooling problem as alleged by the complainant. This job card Ex.R3 has been duly signed by Deepak Garg complainant. Have his AC was not set OK on that day, then no explanation is forthcoming as to why Deepak Garg signed the same showing his satisfaction to the AC. Similarly, job card Ex.R2 dated 24.8.2007 shows that the complainant lodged a complaint which was duly rectified but the complainant gave note in Hindi that Hum Puri Tarha Tasali Nahi Hai. Although in the job card Ex.R2 it is mentioned that the room temperature was 32o C while the temperature of cooling at the outlet was 12.5o C, so no problem found in the set and the cooling was OK. The writing of the aforesaid remarks on Ex.R2 by the complainant show that the complainant had malafide intention to get replaced his AC. 11. During the pendancy of the complaint, on the request of both the counsel for the parties, this Forum sent engineer/ technician of the OPs who visited the spot and found the AC set OK, but the complainant/ customer refused to sign the job card for the reasons best known to him. Thus, it shows that the complainant was intentionally making the complaints without sufficient cause against the working of his AC. His only intention is to get back the price of the AC or to get the same replaced by new AC without any fault of the OPs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that his AC was not working properly or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 12. To support the aforesaid contention, the OP2-Gian Rangwala has produced affidavit of Pankaj Gupta Ex.R1, photo copies of service call sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. On the other hand, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 produced by the complainant can not be given any effect. 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:23.05.2008.

......................Jagmohan Singh Chawla
......................Smt.Bhupinder Kaur