STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/5/A/86/2021 (Against the Order dated 07 January 2025 in Complaint No.

null of the null)

L.G. Electronics India P. Ltd. .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - A-wing, 3rd floor,D-3,District Center Saket, New Delhi through its Aut. Sig.NCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

Versus Sunil .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - s/o late Sh. Chote Lal r/o Suman Kunj, D-3, H.No. 8/701, New Subhasg Nagar, Backside of DPS School JawalapurNCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

Mehta Bandhu Electronics PRESENT ADDRESS - Main Market, Kathera Bazar, JawalpurNCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

Sant Refrigeration L.G. Service Center PRESENT ADDRESS - near Shankar Ashram Chowk, Subhash nagar, Jawalapur, NCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MS. KUMKUM RANI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. B. S. MANRAL, MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT :

Mr. Chetan Jain (Advocate)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

Nemo Dated: 07 January 2025 FINAL ORDER ORDER (Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

The present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 281 of 2019, styled as Sh. Sunil Vs. Mehta Bandhu Electronics and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on dated 27.06.2019, the respondent No. 1 / complainant had purchased a LG Two Ton Split A.C. model No. Q 24 ENXA No. 906NAGA018071 from respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 for sum of Rs. 51,500/-, out of which, sum of Rs. 7,800/- was charged by respondent No. 3 / opposite party No. 3 towards installation charges of the A.C. The said A.C. carried warranty for a period of one year. It was alleged by the complainant that the said A.C. was defective right from the date of purchase and was giving constant problems. There was noise in the A.C. and there was also cooling problem in the A.C. It was also alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the A.C. The complainant made several complaints to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 regarding defect in the A.C., but the shortcomings in the A.C. were not removed. Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission, it was pleaded that the A.C. was not sold to the complainant under any inducement. Whenever any defect is pointed out in the product, the same is resolved by the company without any delay. It had only received the cost of the A.C. and has not charged any amount towards the cost of the stabilizer. It was further pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the A.C. and in the event of manufacturing defect in the A.C., the liability is that of the manufacturing company. Therefore, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.

4. The appellant / opposite party No. 2 had contested the consumer complaint by filing written statement, wherein it was pleaded that the A.C. does not have any manufacturing defect and that the consumer complaint is based on false grounds. It was also pleaded that no deficiency in service has been made by the appellant and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The respondent No. 3 / opposite party No. 2 had stated in its written statement that an amount of Rs. 700/- was charged towards installation charges of the A.C. As per the request of the complainant, 14 meter additional pipe was installed while installing the A.C. Besides it, the respondent No. 3 had also erected outdoor stand of the A.C., for which the amount was charged from the complainant. The authorised engineer / mechanic of respondent No. 3 had suggested the complainant to get the A.C. installed in a closed room, but the complainant did not listen. The complainant has wrongly imp