Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/241/2015

Sohan lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Carrier Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. : 241/2015 Date of Institution : 13.05.2015 Date of Decision : 20/11/2015 Sohan Lal son of Late Sh.Surja Ram r/o House No.135, Sector 14, West (M.C.Dhanas), UT, Chandigarh ... Complainant. Versus 1. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd., Soptagiri Tower, 6th Floor, Main Road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd., SCO No.196-197, 4th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 3. M/s Pinky Radios, SCO No.369, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. …. Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER Argued by: Complainant in person. OP No.3 exparte. None for OPs No.1 and 2. PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased AC make Carrier alongwith stabilizer from the authorized dealer i.e. OP No.3 vide invoice dated 07.04.2012 (Annexure A-2). After few days of its purchase, the AC started giving problem regarding cooling. It has been averred by the complainant that the stabilizer of the AC was changed four times on the report of the company representative but despite it the AC was not giving the proper cooling. It has further been added by the complainant that the AC and the stabilizer supplied by OPs are defective. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with a prayer to direct the OPs either to replace the AC or to refund its price alongwith compensation for mental agony & physical harassment and litigation expenses. 2. Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Party No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.06.2015. 3. Initially, OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.09.2015. 4. Against the aforesaid order dated 01.09.2015, OPs No.1 and 2 preferred a Revision Petition before the Hon'ble State Commission which was accepted vide order dated 28.10.2015 and the permission was granted to OPs No.1 and 2 to file the written statement within 10 days from today (i.e. 28.10.2015), subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/-. The case was fixed for 10.11.2015, but on the date fixed nobody appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2 either to pay the cost of Rs.3000/- imposed vide order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission or to file the written statement and evidence to rebut the allegations as contained in the complaint. Ultimately, the defence of OPs No.1 and 2 was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 10.11.2015. 5. We have heard the complainant, in person, and have gone through the documents on record. 6. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant has purchased the AC alongwith the stabilizer for an amount of Rs.29,300/-, including the freight charges. It is evident from the documentary evidence on record that the AC in question started giving problems after few days of its purchase. From the perusal of Annexures A-4 to A-10, it is amply clear that stabilizer of the AC was changed by the OPs four times on the recommendation of the Service Engineer of the OPs No.1 and 2 but despite changing the stabilizer, the AC was not giving the proper cooling meaning thereby that there is some inherent defect in the AC. The OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite his repeated requests which itself constitutes deficiency in service on their part. Moreover, the evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as the OPs have not dare to contest the case. 7. Needless to mention here that the complainant had already given a long hand to the OPs to repair the AC/Stabilizer, in question, but they were not able to repair the same and ultimately he has to file the instant complaint for redressal of his genuine grievance. Moreover, the complainant had spent Rs.29,300/- to purchase the AC in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties. In this view of the matter, the grievance of the complainant cannot be redressed by directing the Opposite Parties to repair/replace the AC/Stabilizer in question. 8. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;- i) To refund Rs.29,300/- i.e. price of the invoice dated 07.04.2012 (Annexure C-2) to the complainant. ii) To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant iii) To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 20/11/2015 Sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER