Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/89

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Milap Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :               89 of 2018         

Date of Institution :        24.05.2018

Date of Decision :               3.04.2019

Jaspal Singh Taggar, aged about 40 years, son of Malkit Singh Taggar son of Partap Singh, r/o Near Government High School, Basti Surgapuri, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.                                         .....Complainant

Versus

1. Milap Electronics, Jaitu Road, Mehta Chowk, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, through its Prop /Partner /authorized signatory.
2. Gupta Sound Service, Railway Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
3. Symphony House, FP 12TP 50, Bodakdev, Off.SG Highway Ahmedabad, (Gujrat)-380054.

           ..........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:  Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                 Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Jaspal Singh, Complainant in person,

              Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Sumit Gupta on behalf of OP-2,

              OP-3 Exparte.

 

 

cc no.-89 of 2018

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to  OPs to repair or replace the defective Air Cooler or to refund the cost price of Rs.9,000/- of Air Cooler and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP-1 that Symphony Air Cooler is of best quality, complainant purchased one Symphony Air Cooler worth Rs.9,000/-from OP-1 against bill no.3439 dated 29.05.2017 with one year warrantee. Mechanic of OP-1 installed the said cooler in his house, but since installation said cooler is not giving proper cooling. As per specifications of Company, said cooler was to give cooling upto 10 meters or 33 feet, but cooler in question gave cooling only upto 6-7 feet and it has also burnt for two times because its safety points were not working properly. Complainant complained about these defects to Ops several times, but they kept lingering on matter on one pretext or the other. When cooler alongwith its entire body burnt first time on 9.07.2017, complainant reported the matter to OPs, but their technician came on 17.07.2017 and changed the motor and body of cooler on 4.08.2017. On 28.10.2017, cooler stopped working and complainant immediately reported the matter to Ops, but  their technician visited the place of complainant on 1.05.2018 after about six months of complaint, but he could not remove the defect from said cooler and it has totally stopped working since 28.10.2017. complainant has made several requests to Ops to repair or replace the said cooler, but all in

cc no.-89 of 2018

vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and he has prayed for directing OPs to replace the defective cooler with new one of same model or to refund the price of Rs.9000/- that is the cost of air cooler in question and for also directing them to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                           Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and present complaint was admitted and  vide order dated 30.05.2018, notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                         OP-1 filed reply and took preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on their part and allegations levelled by complainant on OP-1 are totally false and incorrect and asserted that when answering OP sold the said cooler to complainant, it was working properly. It is submitted that in rainy season due to moisture in air, some times cooling of coolers gets effected and it is admitted that in raining season, complainant approached them and stated that due to moisture in air, cooling of his cooler has been effected and asked answering OP to give him air conditioner by adjusting the price of cooler in the price of air conditioner, but OP-1 denied complainant saying it cannot be done as cooler cannot be exchanged with air conditioner and price of cooler cannot be adjusted with that of air conditioner. It is further averred that once water is filled in cooler, company does not take it back and moreover, answering OP does not sell old coolers. On this, complainant asked for the phone number of company and also threatened him. However, on merits OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no

cc no.-89 of 2018

defect in cooler sold by them and complainant never reported any complaint regarding defect in said cooler to them. it is sternly denied that they ever sent their mechanic to the house of complainant and all the allegations of complainant are wrong and incorrect. OP-1 reiterated that complainant wanted them to exchange his said cooler with the air conditioner and to adjust the price of cooler with that of AC and on refusal to do so, complainant has levelled false allegations against OP-1. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                               OP-2 filed reply wherein asserted that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and OP-2 has been unnecessarily dragged in present litigation. Complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and asserted that answering OP is only service centre and guarantee and warrantee if any is to be given by OP-3. It is further averred that whenever complainant approached them, they made it clear to him that  replacement if any is to be given by Company and he is not liable for any kind of guarantee or warrantee. It is further averred that whenever, mechanic of OP-2 visited the complainant, every time, he raised a new defect and remained adamant for replacement of said air cooler. OP-2  admitted before the Forum that body of the cooler was changed on 19.05.2018 and thereafter, complainant did not allow the mechanic to see the air cooler. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                             OP-3 filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is admitted that on 29.05.2017, complainant

cc no.-89 of 2018

purchased the cooler in question from OP-1 and after installation he submitted service request to the service centre of OP-3 for improper cooling. They sent their technician to the house of complainant, who checked and inspected the cooler and provided proper services. Complainant again submitted service request for change of spare parts and cooling parts and effective services were provided by them. complainant repeatedly called service centre of Ops and insisted for replacement. Technician of OP-3 replaced the motor of cooler for satisfaction of complainant. thereafter, complainant sent e-mail for improper cooling. Though OP-3 provided effective services through their technical experts but complainant even questioned the credentials and qualification of technical person. It is averred that there is no defect in said cooler and allegations levelled by complainant regarding defect in it false and frivolous. It is reiterated there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

7                                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                         OP-3 filed reply and thereafter, did not appear in the Forum on several dates. It was presumed that OP-3 is not interested in contesting the case and therefore vide order dated 19.03.2019, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

9                                                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vinod Kalra Ex OP-1/1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2

cc no.-89 of 2018

tendered affidavit of Sumit Kumar Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to Ex OP-2/11 and also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2.

10                                                                           We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

11                                                           Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased one Symphony Air Cooler for Rs.9,000/-from OP-1 against proper bill with one year warrantee. After installation said cooler did not give proper cooling. As per specifications of Company, it was to give cooling upto 10 meters or 33 feet, but it gave cooling only upto 6-7 feet and has also been burnt for two times because its safety points were not working properly. Complainant reported the matter to Ops several times, but they kept putting him off on matter on one pretext or the other. Cooler alongwith its entire body burnt first time on 9.07.2017, but technician of OPs came very late on 17.07.2017 and changed the motor and body of cooler on 4.08.2017. On 28.10.2017, cooler stopped working and on reporting the matter to Ops, their technician visited the place of complainant on 1.05.2018 i.e after about six months of complaint and he could not remove the defect from said cooler and it is not working since 28.10.2017. Despite repeated requests by complainant, OPs did not do anything needful and put off the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for directing OPs to replace the defective cooler with new one of same model or to refund the cost price of Rs.9,000/- of air cooler in question alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.                           

 

cc no.-89 of 2018

12                                                                   Ld Counsel for OP-1 brought before the Forum that there is no deficiency in service on their part and allegations levelled by complainant on them are totally false and incorrect. It is asserted that due to moisture in air in rainy season, sometimes cooling of coolers gets effected and in raining season, complainant approached them and stated that cooling of his cooler has been effected and asked OP to give him air conditioner by adjusting the price of cooler in the price of air conditioner. On this, OP-1 said that it cannot be done as cooler cannot be exchanged with air conditioner and price of cooler cannot be adjusted. Moreover, once water is filled in cooler, company does not take it back and OP-1 does not sell old coolers. OP-1 argued that there is no defect in cooler sold by them and complainant never reported any defect in said cooler to them. OP-1 never sent their mechanic to the house of complainant and all the allegations of complainant are wrong and incorrect. OP-1 asserted that complainant wanted to get exchanged his cooler with the air conditioner and to adjust the price of cooler with that of AC and on refusal to do so, complainant has levelled false allegations against OP-1.There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

13                                   Ld Counsel for OP-2 stressed mainly on the point that being Service Centre, they can only provide services and they have no role in making replacement of the article. Whenever complainant reported any problem or defect in said cooler, that has been resolved by them. They have changed the motor of the cooler and body of the cooler but complainant insisted for replacement, which is not permissible by them. There is no defficiency in service on their part and also prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

cc no.-89 of 2018

14                                          There is no rebuttal from OP-3 and therefore, reply filed by OP-3 is considered as arguments advanced by them. as per OP-3 there is no deficiency in service on their part and asserted that on 29.05.2017, complainant purchased the cooler in question from OP-1 and after installation he complained about to the service centre of OP-3 for improper cooling. Technician inspected the cooler and provided proper services. Complainant again submitted service request for change of spare parts and cooling parts and effective services were provided by them. Complainant repeatedly called service centre of Ops and insisted for replacement. Technician of OP-3 replaced the motor of cooler for satisfaction of complainant. There is no defect in said cooler and complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3.

15                                From the above discussion, it is observed that case of complainant is that the air cooler purchased by him was defective and despite repeated requests and complaints by complainant, Ops did not give proper services to repair the said cooler. It is admitted by OPs in written reply that complainant made complaints regarding improper cooling of said cooler and even it was burnt for two times. OP-2 themselves admitted that they changed the motor and body of said cooler. Even Ops responded very late to the requests of complainant regarding defects in said cooler. All the OPs admitted that complainant made complaints regarding improper cooling and defects in cooler which could not be resolved by them. It is observed that OPs have failed to redress the grievance of complainant and have caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for replacement of air cooler alongwith compensation. OP-1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part and allegations levelled by complainant are false though it is admitted by OP-1 that complainant purchased the said air cooler from

cc no.-89 of 2018

them and it is also admitted that complainant made complaint against improper cooling of said air cooler to them. OP-2 prayed that it is only service centre and if any defect arises in any article, only Company is liable for replacement, repair or for redressal of such complaints. OP-2 has no liability towards replacement or refund of any article and is not the manufacturer of said articles. Op-1 and OP-2 also stressed that relief sought by complainant is the sole liability of OP-3 and in present case OP-1 and OP-2 have no role to play in making repairs, replacement or refund of any kind, which is required to be provided by company and complaint against them is not liable to be maintained.

16                             From the careful perusal of pleadings, evidence placed on record and after thorough application of mind, this Forum is of considered view that there is no dispute regarding purchase of air cooler in question. Moreover, it is also admitted by parties that air cooler in question had some defects and on complaints by complainant, mechanic of OP-3 checked the same and changed the motor and entire body of said cooler. As per OP-2 and OP-3, they have replaced the motor and body of cooler and provided effective services but complainant is adamant and insisting for giving new one, which is not permissible. On the other hand allegation of complainant is that despite repeated requests and complaints, OPs kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is observed that OP-3 have been deficient in providing effective and proper services upto the satisfaction of complainant and have failed to redress the grievance of complainant, which compelled him to file the present complaint. Had the OPs provided effective and efficient services and redressed his grievance timely, complainant would have no

 

cc no.-89 of 2018

need to enter into litigation. Action of OP-3 in not rendering effective and timely  services has aggravated the grievance of complainant and caused him great harassment and mental agony. Therefore, complaint against OP-3 stands allowed and OP-3 is directed to replace the air cooler of complainant with new one of same model within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order. OP-3 is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(three thousands) to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses incurred by him. However, complaint against OP-1 and OP-2 stands hereby dismissed as OP-1 is mere shopkeeper and OP-2 is only service provider and they are not responsible for any replacement or refund as the sole responsibility for manufacturing defect devolves only with concerned company. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 3.04.2019

                                     

(Param Pal Kaur)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                Member                                     President