Haryana

StateCommission

A/734/2019

AMIT GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DODA COMFORTS AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR MOUDGIL

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.734of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 22.08.2019

                                                        Date of Order: 06.04.2023

 

Amit Goyal S/o Sh. Ram Diya Goel, R/o H.No.37, D,C. Colony (Rajinder Nagar), Meerut Road, Near Tau Devi Lal Chowk, Karnal, Distt. Karnal.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. M/s Doda Comforts, Shop No.7, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Suvidha, Karnal through its prop./ partner.
2. The Managing Director, Symphony House, FB12-TPSO Bodakdev, Off. SG High Way, Ahmedabad 380054 (India).

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Rajesh Kumar Moudgil, Advocate for theappellant.

                   None for the respondents.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.734 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 29.07.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal(Now In short “District Commission”) in consumer complaint No.252 of 2018, which was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a cooler, model No. storm 70-1, bearing serial No.1251648010560 manufactured by opposite party (OP) No.2 and sold by opposite party No.1 in cash for Rs.15,000/- vide invoice No.943 dated 10.05.2018 alongwith one year warranty. From the very beginning, he found that cooler was not giving any cool air and facing great difficulties in scorching heat.  He further alleged that  due to some manufacturing defect and wrong design, the cooler was not giving cool air.  He raised this issue with OP No.2 and upon complaint, technician Gaurav  from R.S.Service carried inspection and observed that cooler was not giving the cool air.  On 11.07.2018, he contacted OP No.2 on mobile and he again deputed his technician to resolve the problem, but none appeared to attend the complaint.  On 17.07.2018, he approached OP No.1  seeking refund  of the amount of Rs.15,000/- but OP No.1refused to refund the amount. Faced with this situation, legal notice was got issued to the OPs, but, to no avail. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      OP No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.11.2018.

4.      OP No.2 appeared and filed its written version alleging that the product’s validity of warranty was of one year, subject to Ahmedabad jurisdiction.  In May 2018, complainant has purchased the Air cooler of model Storm 70i from M/s Doda Comforts, Karnal and after few months of installation and utilization, complainant submitted its service request with OP for cooling issue. A technician visited the house of complainant and being technical person provided a demo of its operating system to the complainant and thereafter signed call slip. The products of OP No.2 were placed  in the market after stringent quality tests, leaving no scope for any technical defect.  The performance of the air cooler may be adversely affected due to voltage fluctuation, for want of proper installation of the cooler, improper ventilation  of the area where air cooler is installed and not filing up the water in its tank from time to time.  There was no manufacturing defect in the product. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Karnalhas dismissed the complaint vide order dated 29.07.2019.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom,  the complainant has preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument were advanced by Mr.Rajesh Kumar Moudgil, Advocate for theappellant. With his kind assistance entire record of the appealincluding the evidence already led on behalf of  the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that due to manufacturing defect in the cooler at early stage, he may be allowed to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/-.  Learned District Commission fell in error when it dismissed the complaint. As such appeal should be allowed.

9.      It is not disputed that complainant had purchased a cooler, model No. storm 70-i, bearing serial No.1251648010560 manufactured by opposite party (OP) No.2 from opposite party No.1 by paying in cash for Rs.15,000/- vide invoice No.943 dated 10.05.2018 alongwith one year warranty. Perusal of the file shows that complainant alleged it was not giving cool air after using it nearly for about 2 months only. This position was faced by purchaser in the month of May and June. There was no complaint in the month of May & June, 2018. The call slip signed by the technician at page no.29 of the record reveals that defective part of this cooler was replaced by the technician and in the end complainant and technician signed the call slip. It is a matter of common experience that in the month of July and onwards due to excess humidity in the atmosphere, the desert coolers loose its effect because there is already lot of moisture in the air surrounding everyone. Perhaps that is why we say that coolers become ineffective in rainy reasons. More over there can be so many factors which can also affect the working of coolers as enumerated in the written version submitted  by the respondent original OP No.1 dealer, so for this reason for which  precise reason the cooler in question was not found to be giving cool air laden with water content which gives cool feeling.  Since there was no manufacturing defect in the cooler.  The learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. The learned District Commission committed no illegality while passing the order dated 29.07.2019.  The appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

10.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.      File be consigned to record room.

 

Date: 06.04.2023                                                                 (S. P. Sood)

                                                                                                Judicial Member

S.K (Pvt. Secy.)