DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

Vikas Kumar C/o Surindera Sweets, Kartarpura Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. New Verma Electronics, Inside Bouran Gate, Nabha, District Patiala.
2. ETA General Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office S.C.O.-2475-76, Sector 22-C, 2^nd Floor, CHANDIGARH- 160 022.
3. ETA General Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, ETA House, 3^rd Floor # 71/63, Opposite Loyola College, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam , Chennai-6000034. ETA General Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office, R.S.Nos.79 to 81 Kalitheerthalkuppam , Mannadipet Commune, Pondichery- 605 107.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

PRESENT:                   Sh.Pankaj Verma, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Vabihav Mangla, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Sh.Vikas Walia, counsel for OPs No.2 to 4.                 

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Vikas Kumar  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Verma Electronics and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:
3. That on 9.5.2017 complainant purchased a new Split Air Conditioner of O’General Company, Model 270N AogA-24 FUTA 8/N-T001363,T001508 from OP No.1 for a total sum of Rs.70,800/-, which was installed in his house by the OP but the said AC in question is defective and the same is not functioning properly. Complainant approached OP No.1 for a number of times for the replacement of the said AC but of no effect. Complainant also issued legal notice dated 21.6.2017 to the OPs but of no avail. Said act of the OPs caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and also amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint.
5. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it raised certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is admitted that complainant purchased AC in question from OP No.1 but model number and amount of purchase of the said AC is incorrect and correct model number is “2 Ton AOGA24FUTA” and the correct amount of purchase is Rs.70,000/-.It is submitted that after receipt of complaint, official of company visited the house of the complainant when the AC was found running in a perfect condition. After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. In the written statement filed by OPs No.2 to 4 certain preliminary objections have been raised. On merits, it is submitted that the unit in question is not installed by the authorized engineer of the OP company and the warranty of the unit has got barred due to faulty installation. Further, on 7.9.2017 engineer of the company visited the shop of complainant and after checking he found that gas of the unit had leaked, the refilling of which was on chargeable basis but the complainant refused for the same. Rest of the parts of A.C. were in O.K.condition. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. In evidence, ld. counsel produced affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA, copy of bill dated 9.5.2017,Ex.C1, copy of legal notice dated 21.6.2017,Ex.C2, postal receipts,Exs.C3 to c6 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Parmod Kumar Verma alongwith documents, Exs.OP1 to OP8 photocopies of photographs and closed evidence.
9. Ld. counsel for OPs No.2to4 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Rajnish Parmar alongwith documents, Ex.OP9 copy of warranty terms and conditions, Ex.OP10 copy of job sheet dated 7.9.2017 and closed evidence.
10. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. Admittedly, complainant had purchased a Split A.C. from OP No.1 of 2TR capacity, vide bill dated 9.5.2017,Ex.C1 for a consideration of Rs.70,000/- alongwith installation charges of Rs.800/-. The AC was installed in the premises of complainant by OP No.1. However, the complainant has alleged that AC in question was defective as the same was not giving the cooling. Complainant approached OP No.1 for replacement of the same and also issued legal notices to OPs No.1to4 but no fruitful purpose was served. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the defective AC in question or refund of the amount so paid by him alongwith compensation etc.
12. OP No.1 in its written arguments have agreed that the said AC was sold to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-.Said AC was installed in the premises of the complainant as per the norms of the manufacturing company. It is further pleaded that OP No.1 had installed numerous ACs which are in perfect condition and are giving perfect cooling. OP No.1 has further submitted that the size of the room where the AC has been installed is too large and it takes time to cool the area due to above fact. The premises of the complainant were duly visited by the representative of the company on receipt of complaint and various photographs were clicked by the representative which are Exs.OP1 to OP7. As per the said photographs the installation of the A.C is in perfect condition. Moreover, the AC was consuming electric current of 7.5 ampere while in operation (Ex.OP5) and photographs showing room temperature 34.7° Celsius at the time of start of AC, 25.1° Celsius after half an hour are also produced as evidence per Ex.OP4 and OP7. OP No.1 has relied upon the above documents/photographs and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
13. OPs No.2 to 4 in their written statement have submitted that the engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant on 7.9.2017 after the receipt of complaint regarding no cooling, as per job sheet,Ex.OP10. As per the report of the engineer gas of the unit had leaked due to faulty installation improper tightening of nuts etc leading to the leakage of gas from the flange. OPs have further stated that the AC is covered under warranty which provides for one year’s of comprehensive warranty and four years’ warranty on compressor only. The OPs have submitted that the gas being a consumable item as such filling of the gas is not covered under warranty and is on chargeable basis. OPs have further submitted that all other parts of the AC are in OK condition. It has been pleaded that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.2,3 and 4.
14. A perusal of the above clearly indicates that the AC was installed by OP No.1 being the authorized dealer of OPs No.2,3and 4.The argument of OPs No.2,3and 4 that AC was installed by an unauthorized is not justified as OP No.1 has confessed that AC in question was installed by them. The arguments led by OP No.1 in its written statement that AC was working perfectly for which he has produced photographs, is in contradiction with the written statement filed by OPs No.2, 3 and 4 as gas from the AC had leaked due to loose flange at the time of installation, leading to no cooling. Further OPs No.2,3 and 4 have clearly stated that the refilling of gas is done on chargeable basis which was refused by the complainant.
15. From the above, it transpires that there is clear contradiction in the submissions of OPs No.1 and OPs No.2,3 and 4 and it transpires that there was leakage of gas from the flange of the AC due to improper installation by OP No.1 leading to no cooling.We, therefore, find that OP No.1 was deficient as far as installation of AC is concerned and OPs No.2,3 and 4 are deficient in not filling the gas within two months from the date of purchase of the AC in question as the leakage was due to improper installation by OP No.1 and not due to any mishandling on the part of the complainant.

In view of above, we partly allow the complaint and direct OPs to refill the gas and make the AC in perfect condition to the satisfaction of the complainant for which no charges be levied to the complainant. Both the parties are free tocarry out the videography of the process and also to carry out the videography of the operation of the AC after it is made operational by them. Compliance of the said order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which OPs shall pay Rs.20,000/- jointly or severally, ascosts of the complaint to the complainant.         

16.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  

DATED:5.5.2023

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President