Punjab

StateCommission

A/501/2017

S.K. Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Usha International Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                             2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.501 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution: 29.06.2017

                                                          Order Reserved on : 24.01.2018

                                                          Date of Decision:    13.02.2018

 

S.K. Chopra c/o Himalya Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., C-27, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Mohali 160055 SAS Nagar Punjab.

                                                                                      Appellant/complainant

Versus

1. Usha International Limited, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
2. Maya Electronics, shop No.1026, Circular Road (Near SBI Bank), Village Mattaur, Sector 70, SAS Nagar Mohali (Punjab).  

                                                         Respondents/opposite party no.1&2     

First Appeal against order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,   SAS Nagar Mohali.

Quorum:-

          ShriGurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

Present:-

          For appellant                          :         Sh. S.K. Chopra, in person

          For respondent No.1             :         Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate

          For respondent No.2             :         Ex-parte

 

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL MEMBER :-

ORDER

                    The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated  24.04.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.401 of 2016 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar Mohali (herein referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and it directed OP No.2 to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses. It further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the aforesaid awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment. 

2.                Complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that he had purchased one Usha Desert Cooler Model 503 on 19.05.2016 from OP No.2. At the time of sale, OP No.2 assured that the cooler will cool 90 M2 area and that there will be noticeable temperature decrease especially in dry season.  However, when the cooler was put to use there was no cooling effect. The complaint was registered with OP No.1 telephonically and through mail on 20.05.2016. OP No.1 sent Mr. Chauhan who recorded the temperature and it was found that the total area of 70 square meter there was nominal reduction by about 4 degree in a small area of 10 meter square. Otherwise in balance area of 60 square meter there was no reduction in temperature. The complainant sent an e-mail dated 14.06.2016 but without any response. The complainant also contacted OP No.2 but OP No.2 told to take up the case with OP No.1. Hence the complaint and requested to direct the dealer and manufacturer to either replace the product which meets the specification or to refund the cost along with interest @ 18% along with compensation for mental harassment and costs of litigation.

                                                                                     

3.                Upon notice, the complaint was contested by OP No.1 by filing written reply in which it was pleaded that 90 square meter area does not mean that space can be compartmentalized then also the blower will throw the air in the other rooms with separate window and doors. The strength of the air cooler can be determined by measuring area in which cool air can be thrown without any interruption of walls, doors and windows but still on the insistence of the  complainant temperature check was carried though it is not a test for cooler. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Notice was sent to OP No.2 which was delivered on 07.09.2016. None appeared for it despite repeated calling and OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.10.2016.

5.                Before the District Forum the parties led their respective evidence.

6.                In support of their allegations, the complainant had tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/1, copies of e-mails Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, bill Ex.C-4, record of room temperature Ex.C-5, plan of the flat Ex.C-6 and telephone Bill Ex.C-7. On the other hand, Shri Manmohan Bhuntani, Head Sales Administration tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP1/1, brochure Ex.OP-1, and special power of attorney Ex.OP-2 and closed the same.

7.                After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written version filed by OPs evidence and documents brought on record the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed as referred above.

8.                Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondents/Ops and have persued the record carefully.

10.              It was argued by the appellant/complainant in person that he purchased Maxx Air CD 503 Model Desert Cooler of Usha make from M/s Maya Electronics Mohali, it was assured that it will cool upto 90 square/meter area in residence, shop or office and there will be noticeable decrease in temperature specially in dry season. But the desert cooler did not work from day one. On complaint, technician Mr. Chauhan checked the same on 04.06.2016 wherein first room temperature was recorded as 34.05 degree against the suction temperature of 38.08. As such there was only 4.3 degree decrease in the temperature whereas in the second room the temperature was 35.02 and in kitchen 35.09 so there was no noticeable temperature decrease. On complaint, the Ops refused to replace the cooler with desired specifications as such there is deficiency in service on the parts of Ops.  

11.              Counsel for OP No.1 argued that in ten minutes four degree temperature has been reduced which is substantial and showed that cool air is being thrown by the cooler. Further argued that other rooms, kitchen cannot be cooled by same product as they are physically separated by walls, doors blocking the flow of air. The strength of the air cooler can be determined by measuring area in which cool air can be thrown without any  interruption of walls, doors and windows as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

12.              District Forum has rightly observed that OP No.2 who indulged in unfair trade practice by telling the complainant at the time of sale of  cooler that it will cool 90 square meter area. No appearance of OP No.2 shows that OP No.2 has nothing to say regarding the averments of the complaint. As far OP No.1 is concerned Ex.OP-1 shows specification of the model Max Air CD 503 are as under:-

          MAXX AIR CD 503

          Powerful Air Flow 3400m3/hr

          3 side Honeycomb Cooling Medium

          Wider Air Throw 25 feet

          Power Consumption 190 W

          50 Litre Tank Capacity

          Vertical Motorised Louvers

          4 way air deflection

          Aqua Valve : For Tension free water fill

          3 speed levels – High/Medium/Low

          Works on inverter

          1 Year Warranty.

          From the above nowhere it is mentioned that the Desert Cooler will work upto 90 meter square area in a flat where rooms are separated by walls, doors and windows. The complainant has installed the desert cooler in a 2BHK Flat Ex.C-6 wherein due to partition walls doors and windows decrease in temperature cannot be the same as in the first hall where the cooler is installed. As such Op No.1 is not deficient in service. So far as OP No.2 is concerned already a compensation of Rs.10,000/- has already been allowed, which in our opinion is quite adequate in view of the reasons stated above. Therefore, no scope of further enhancement.

13.              Sequel to the above, we find no merit in the appeal as such the appeal is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the Court cases.

 

                                                                     (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                   Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

                                                                  

                                                                   (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

                                                                             Member

 

 

February    13,  2018

PK/-