Complainant Manpreet Singh vide the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party to make payment of Rs.15,000/- i.e. differences of the prices between the A.C. firstly installed in his house  alongwith interest @ 12%. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service  alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased an A.C. Mistubishi 1.5 Ton Heavy Duty for Rs.47,000/- vide Invoice/bill dated 4.6.2018 from the opposite party. The A.C. was defective one on account of manufacturing defects and the same started giving troubles from the day of its installation. Cooling of the AC was not proper and even there were number of other defects in the same. He approached the opposite party for the needful and when the same could not be repaired, the opposite party replaced the abovesaid A.C. with another A.C. make Onida, price of which was told to him as Rs.32,000/-. The opposite party also assured the complainant that he will refund Rs.15,000/- to the complainant i.e. difference of price between the A.C. firstly purchased by him and  the A.C. with  which the abovesaid A.C. was replaced. He has further pleaded that he had regularly approached the opposite party and requested him to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/-, but opposite party always put the matter with one pretext or the other. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  He also got served registered AD notice dated 7.1.2019 through his counsel to the opposite party, requesting it to make the payment of Rs.15,000/- i.e. difference of prices of both the ACs but despite the service of notice, the opposite party neither given any reply nor paid the amount in question. Hence this complaint.

3.         Opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that complainant never approached for change of the A.C. and the opposite party never changed his A.C. The complainant has himself taken contradictory stand. The complainant has not placed on record any document of replacement i.e. cancelled bill of earlier A.C. and new bill of new A.C. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

5.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.C1/A, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C1 to Ex.C3.

6.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.    As per Ex.C-1, the complainant purchased one Mistubishi A.C., 1.5 ton, Heavy duty on 4.6.2018 vide Invoice No.5651 for a sum of Rs.47,000/-. It is alleged that the said A.C. was defective as it was giving problem from the day one of its installation. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party for getting repair. It is further alleged that when the said A.C. could not be repaired, the opposite party replaced the A.C. in question with a new A.C. of the make ONIDA, the price of which was Rs.32,000/- and the opposite party assured the complainant that it would refund Rs.15,000/- (i.e. difference of price between both the A.C.’s) but the opposite party did not refund the same despite repeated requests by the complainant.

8.      Whereas, it is the case of the opposite party that the complainant did not approach the opposite party for the change of the A.C. and it never changed the A.C. of the complainant.

9.     Though the complainant has alleged that the opposite party replaced the A.C. of the complainant with a new one of the make ONIDA, but he has neither placed on record any Job Sheet to prove that there ever occurred any defect in the A.C. nor he has produced on record any document of replacement of the A.C. i.e. cancelled bill of the earlier A.C. and the bill of the new A.C. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite party.

10.      In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                     

             (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)

September 14, 2021                                                       Member

*MK*