| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 190 of 27-08-2020 Decided on : 21-04-2022 Baljinder Singh S/o Gurmel Singh, aged about 35 years R/o 517, Lehra Bega, District Bathinda 151 111. ........Complainant
Versus M/s. Maheshwari Electricals, Maheshwari Street, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda 151 101 through its Prop/Partner Radhe Fridge Care Centre, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda, through its Prop/Partner Godrej Industries Ltd, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli, Mumbai 400079 through its MD .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Hasanpreet Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Shaminder Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for OP No.1 Sh. J D Nayyar, Advocate, for OP No. 2 & 3. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Baljinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against M/s. Maheshwari Electricals and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Split A.C of Godrej Company of one Ton, Model GSC 12RTC3-WRA, 3 star vide bill No. 200 dated 2-8-2019 for Rs. 26,500/-, from opposite party No. 1 with one year guarantee + 5 years guarantee on compressor. It is alleged that complainant installed the said A.C. in his house and used the same for about one month only i.e. upto September, 2019. Thereafter complainant started using the A.C. in June, 2020, after getting the same serviced. The complainant alleged that A.C did not work properly as the same is not giving proper cooling. The complainant made repeated complaints to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties have not given any positive response. The complainant also lodged complaint on Toll Free number of Godrej Company on 13-07-2020 vide complaint No. 51307372319 but got no response. The complainant lodged second complaint on 15-07-2020 vide No. 51507312525 with the opposite parties about his matter. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 sent their service man to the house of the complainant who checked the A.C. and provided formal service by claiming that there is no defect in it although the same is not providing proper cooling. It is also alleged that again on 21-07-2020, the complainant lodged complaint of his A.C. on the same toll free number vide complaint No. 52107372915, but there is no response from the opposite parties regarding the same till date. The opposite parties are ignoring/delaying the said matter of complainant, so that guarantee period of A.C. is elapsed. The complainant alleged that there is some manufacturing defect in the said A.C due to which complainant lodging complaints again and again, but the opposite parties have not given any solution till date. The mother of the complainant remains ill and the said A.C was got installed for the comfort of his mother but she has also been deprived of enjoying the proper cooling. The complainant also alleged that no action has been taken by the opposite parties till date. The opposite parties failed to provide service and remove defect from the AC within the guarantee period. The opposite parties neither repaired nor replaced the defective A.C nor refunded its price. The complainant also got issued notice on 31-07-2020 to the opposite parties, but to no effect. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 did not reply to the legal notice, but the opposite party No. 1 replied to the notice wherein they admitted that they have given one year guarantee on the said A.C + 5 years guarantee on compressor on the behalf of opposite party No. 3. It is the duty of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to deal with it, but nothing has been done by the opposite parties in this matter till date. The complainant alleged that complainant and his family is suffering due to malafide intention and behaviour of the opposite parties. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective A.C. or refund the entire price i.e. Rs. 25,500/- and extend the guarantee period of the A.C. The opposite parties be also directed to pay to complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. The opposite party No. 1 in its separate written reply, raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in its present form. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action. That the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, admissions, omissions and acquiescence. That the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands rather he has intentionally concealed the true and material facts and has grossly twisted the facts as per his own convenience. The opposite party No. 1 has nothing to do with providing service to the complainant rather the same is to be provided by the company i.e. opposite party No. 3 through its Authorized Service Centers including opposite party No. 2. As per terms and conditions of the warranty clause, the opposite party No.1 has been unnecessarily dragged as party to the present complaint. That the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it has been pleaded that guarantee/warranty was provided by opposite party No.1 to the complainant on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and the same is to be provided only by opposite party No. 3. After purchase of the A.C from the shop of opposite party No. 1, the complainant never visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and never lodged any complaint with opposite party No.1 regarding any defect in the functioning of the Air Conditioner. The opposite party No. 1 has nothing to do with providing the service to the Air Conditioner of the complainant in case of any alleged defect and the complainant also never lodged any complaint with opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner as alleged but however in case of any alleged defect, the service is to be provided only by opposite parties No. 2&3. After controvering all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. The opposite parties 2 & 3 filed joint written reply raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form. That the complainant has no cause of action and that that this Comission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. That the complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint and has unnecessarily harassed the opposite parties by dragging. them into uncalled for litigation. That intricate and contentious question of fact and law are involved in the present complaint, which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence, as such the same cannot be decided by way of summary jurisdiction enacted before this Commission. That the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has distorted and twisted the true facts before this Commission with malafide intention to draw illegal gains by causing harassment and humiliation to the opposite party and in order to defeat the valuable rights of the opposite parties and that the complainant is not a consumer. It has been pleaded that the actual facts of the case are that the complainant after purchasing AC from opposite party No. 1, got it installed privately which in fact was supposed to be got installed through the service center. However, as goodwill gesture and considering it to be our responsibility, after receiving complaint on 13.07.2020, from the complainant the service engineer of the opposite paries went to his residence but his residence was found locked. The said service engineer again attended the complaint on the same day i.e. 13.7.2020 and found that there was less gas in the compressor which was refi11ed without any cost. As per the procedure adopted by the opposite parties, any customer who makes online complaint, is given a PIN/OTP number, which he is required to disclose to the service engineer only after he is fully satisfied with the complaint. The complainant after getting satisfied with the service, disclosed the OTP/PIN No. CSN-814 with the service engineer., which proves that the complaint had been attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. It has been further pleaded that second time on 27.07.2020 on receiving the complaint from the complainant, again the service engineer went on the spot and upon checking the different parts from where the gas could have possibly leaked, it was found that all the said points were intact. On further checking he found stabilizer showing voltage 225-238 watts, the grill temperature was found 14.5 Celsius, and running back pressure was found to be 150 PSR. All these figures were well within the range. The service engineer has clicked the photos with regard to above figures. The complainant after getting satisfied with the service had disclosed OTP/PIN No. C5N-648 with the service engineer., which proves that the complaint had been attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 further pleaded that again, on 31.7.2020, the service engineer revisited the premises and the AC was checked and on inspection it was found that End Valve through which the gas passed from compressor to AC has been loosened which clearly proved that same was intentionally loosened for leaking the gas and the gas had leaked through the same. However, the service engineer of opposite parties with all bonafides had filled in the gas and found the AC in satisfactory order. He also found stabilizer showing voltage 225-238 watts, the grill temperature was found 14.5 Celsius, and running back pressure was found to be 150 PSR. All these figures were well within the range. All the above facts prove that their has been no fault. Further preliminary objections are that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. That there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. as such the same deserves dismissal. On merits, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have pleaded that the complainant is required to abide by all the terms and conditions to avail the guarantee. The AC is working in a perfect condition and whenever there had been any complaint reported, the same had been properly attended upon by the service engineer as per detailed above. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 reiterated their version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 27-8-2020 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-2), photocopy of guarantee card (Ex. C-3), photocopy of complaint detail (Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-5), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of reply to legal notice. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 25-11-2020 of Narin Maheshwari (Ex. OP-1/1). The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 23-11-2020 of Radhey Shayam (Ex. OP-2/1), affidavit dated 23-11-2020 of Mazaz Khan (Ex. OP-2/2), photocopy of Job Sheet (Ex. OP-2/3), photocopy of bill (Ex. OP-2/4), photocopy of job sheet (Ex. OP-2/5) and photocopy of photographs (Ex. OP-2/8). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that he purchased AC in question on 2-8-2019. The complainant used the A.C for about one month only i.e. upto September, 2019 and thereafter he started using the A.C. in June, 2020. First complaint was lodged by complainant on 13-7-2020. During guarantee period and within short span of time, A.C became defective again and again, thus, there is manufacturing defect in the said A.C. which could not be rectified. A perusal of file reveals that complainant lodged complaints with the opposite parties on 13-7-2020, 15-7-2020 and 21-7-2020 as he has mentioned complaint numbers of complaints in his complaint filed before this Commission. The opposite parties have also placed on file Job Cards dated 13-7-2020 and 21-7-2020 (Ex. OP-2/3 and Ex. OP-2/5). The pleading of the opposite is that there is only gas leakage problem in the A.C.which was solved by the opposite parties. There is no evidence on file to prove any other problem in the A.C but surely gas leakage problem within short span of time itself proved that there is some defect in the AC, if not manufacturing defect. The complainant must have suffered harassment due to leakage of gas which resulted in less cooling. The defects in the A.C. have arisen during guarantee period of the A.C. The opposite parties were bound to repair the A.C. to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, which they failed to do so and under compelled circumstances, complainant knocked the door of this Commission. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not providing proper service to the complainant. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to repair the A.C. in question of the complainant and to remove the defects. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 21-4-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
