Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/169

Karam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s City Point - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :             169 of 2017         

Date of Institution :        22.05.2017

Date of Decision :             11.02.2019

Karam Singh c/o Karam Furniture House, Opposite Medical College, Faridkot.                                                                           .....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s City Point, through its Authorized Signatory Clock Tower, Street No. 7, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.
2. M/s Vestar AC through its Authorized Signatory ETA House, 3^rd Floor, 71/63, Opposite Loyola College, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034, Tamil Nadu.
3. M/s Vestar AC, through its Branch Manager, SCO 2475-76, Sector 22-C, IInd Floor, Chandigarh.

           ..........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:  Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                 Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Bharat Bhushan, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Sandeep Handa,, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3,

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to

cc no.-169 of 2017

OPs to replace the defective Air Conditioner or to refund the cost price of Rs.23,000/- of Air Conditioner and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 25.05.2015, complainant purchased one AC of V Star 1 Company having 3 stars and 1 ton capacity worth Rs.23,000/-from OP-1 with 4 years warranty for compressor. It is submitted that in March, 2017 during summer season when temperature was about 42-45 degree high and heat was at its peak, at that time, AC in question did not work properly. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-2 and 3 through their customer care number and got registered his complaint that compressor of air conditioner was not working, OPs did not bother to take any action to repair the same. Complainant got registered another complaint before OP-2 and OP-3 in response to which OPs sent reply dt 15.04.2017 that complaint is registered, but till date, they have not done anything to redress the grievance of complainant. In excessively hot summers, complainant had to suffer for no reasons and only due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is further submitted that compressor of said AC bears warranty for four years and OPs are liable to provide effective repairs or to replace the same, but despite repeated requests by complainant, OPs have not done anything fruitful and have been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for directing OPs to replace the defective AC with new one of same model or to refund the price of Rs.23,000/- that is the cost of air conditioner in question and for also directing

cc no.-169 of 2017

them to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.25,000/- 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 26.05.2017, notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                         OP-1 filed reply and took legal 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 in case of any defect, the sole responsibility for same lies with OP-2 and 3 as only OP-2 and OP-3 are liable for effective repairs or for replacement if any. However, on merits, OP-1 admitted before the Forum that complainant purchased the said air conditioner from them. It is also admitted by OP-1 that complainant made complaint against working of said air conditioner to them, but OP-1 totally denied the fact that he received any legal notice from complainant side. OP-1 asserted that they sell electrical products in same condition as they receive the same from Company and if any defect arises in any article, only OP-2 and 3 are liable for replacement, repair or for redressal of such complaints. OP-1 has no liability towards replacement or for refund of any article sold by them. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                  On receipt of notice, OP- 2 and 3 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is totally false and is liable to be dismissed and asserted that complaint of complainant was registered on 8.03.2017 and on his complaint, mechanic of answering OPs went to the place of

cc no.-169 of 2017

complainant to check the AC. He found that compressor of AC was not working and he asked for bill as AC of complainant was two years old and after just after 15 days, mechanic again went to the house of complainant and assured for free replacement of compressor. On 30.03.2017, their mechanic took the AC from his house, replaced the compressor and thereafter, he requested complainant to take delivery of his AC, but complainant refused to pick up his AC and insisted for new AC and he even stopped picking up the calls of mechanic and of OPs though they are still ready to give AC to complainant with replaced compressor. However, on merits, they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that OP-1 is not running the business of Company and is only the sub dealer of answering OPs. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint against them with costs.

6                                                           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-6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Sethi as Ex OP-1/1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1. OP-2 and OP-3 also tendered affidavit of Gurmeet Singh as Ex OP-2,3/1 and also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3.

 

cc no.-169 of 2017

8                                                                             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.

9                                                             Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased AC in question for Rs.23,000/-from OP-1 with 4 years warranty for compressor, but in March, 2017 during summer season when temperature was at its peak, AC did not work properly. Complainant immediately got registered complaint regarding non working of air conditioner, but OPs did not bother to take any action to repair the same. Complainant got registered another complaint before OP-2 and OP-3 in response to which OPs sent reply dt 15.04.2017 that his complaint is registered, but till date, they have not done anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant. In excessively hot summers, complainant had to suffer for no reasons and only due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Said AC bears warranty for four years and OPs are liable to provide effective repairs or to replace the same, but despite repeated requests by complainant, OPs did not do anything fruitful 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 AC with new one of same model or to refund the cost price of Rs.23,000/- of air conditioner in question. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.                           

10                                                                   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 in case of any defect, the sole responsibility for repair or replacement lies with OP-2

 

cc no.-169 of 2017

and 3, being manufacturers of said product and they are liable for effective repairs or for replacement if any. Though OP-1 admitted that complainant purchased the said air conditioner from them and also admitted that complainant made complaint against non working of said air conditioner, but OP-1 totally denied the receipt of legal notice. OP-1 asserted that they sell electrical products in same condition as they receive the same from Company and if any defect arises in any article, only OP-2 and 3 are liable for replacement, repair or for redressal of such complaints. OP-1 has no liability towards replacement or for refund of any article sold by them. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                  OP-2 and OP-3 argued that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is a gross abuse of process of law and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is totally false and is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that complaint of complainant was registered on 8.03.2017 and on his complaint, mechanic of  OPs-2 and 3 went to check the AC of complainant. He found compressor of AC not working properly and he asked for bill as AC of complainant was two years old and just after 15 days, mechanic again went to the house of complainant and assured for free replacement of compressor. On 30.03.2017, their mechanic took the AC from his house, replaced the compressor and thereafter, he requested complainant to take delivery of his AC, but complainant refused to pick up his AC and insisted for new AC and he even stopped picking up the calls of mechanic though OP-2 and OP-3 are still ready to give AC to complainant with replaced compressor. They have denied all the

cc no.-169 of 2017

allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that OP-1 is not running the business of Company and is only their sub dealer. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint against them with costs.

12                                From the above discussion, it is observed that case of complainant is that the air conditioner purchased by him was defective one and despite repeated requests and complaints by complainant, nobody came forward to check the AC and they failed to redress the grievance of complainant and have caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for replacement of air conditioner alongwith compensation. In reply, 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 conditioner from them and it is also admitted that complainant made complaint against working of said air conditioner to them. It is prayed by OP-1 that they sell electrical products in same condition as they receive the same from Company and if any defect arises in any article, only Company is liable for replacement, repair or for redressal of such complaints. OP-1 has no liability towards replacement or refund of any article sold by them as OP-1 is only facilitator in selling the products and is not the manufacturer of said articles. Op-1 also stressed that relief sought by complainant is liability of OP-2 and OP-3 and in present case OP-1 has no role to play in making repairs, replacement or refund of any kind, which is required to be provided by company and complaint against OP-1 is not liable to be maintained. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 stressed mainly on

cc no.-169 of 2017

the point that only compressor of AC in question is defective and they have duly replaced the same, but complainant is adamant for new AC, which is not permissible. They are still ready and will to return the AC of complainant with new replaced compressor, but complainant has refused to accept the same. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3.

13                             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 AC in question. Moreover, it is also admitted by parties that AC in question had some defects and on complaints by complainant, mechanic of OP-2 and 3 checked the same and found that compressor of AC was defective. As per OP-2 and 3, they have replaced the defective compressor but complainant is insisting for giving new AC. On the other hand allegation of complainant is that despite repeated requests and complaints registered by him with OPs, no one ever came to check his defective AC and OPs kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is observed that OP-2 and 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 changed the compressor or redressed his grievance timely, complainant would have no need to enter into litigation. Action of OP-2 and 3 in not rendering effective and timely  services aggravated the grievance of complainant and caused him great harassment and mental agony.  Therefore, complaint against OP-2 and 3 stands allowed and they are directed to replace the AC of complainant with new one of same model within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order. They are

cc no.-169 of 2017

further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(five thousands) to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses incurred by him. However, complaint against Op-1 stands hereby dismissed as being a mere shopkeeper, he is not responsible for any replacement or refund as the sole responsibility for effective services or replacement 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 : 11.02.2019

                                     

(Param Pal Kaur)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                Member                                     President