Haryana

Sonipat

CC/93/2015

Parvesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,2. M/s Eta General Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu Malik

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                  Complaint No.93 of 2015

Instituted on: 18.03.2015                                                      

Date of order:  14.06.2016

 

 

Parvesh resident of H.No.1225/31 Pragati Nagar,  Sonepat.

…Complainant.        Versus

 

1.M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 1981, Railway road, Narela, Delhi-40 through its Prop.

2.M/s ETA General Pvt. Ltd., 221, Ist Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020 through its Regional Manager.

 

                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Shri Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

          Sh. Sudesh Kumar Gupta for respondent no.1.

Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. (Karnal) for

respondent no.2.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased on AC of ‘O’ General Company from respondent no.1 worth Rs.45,500/- vide bill no.SNR-6055 dated 23.3.2014.  In the last week of 6/2014 there arose some manufacturing defect in the AC and it had stopped giving cooling.  The complainant has made complaint to the respondents on 2.7.2014, 19.7.2014 and 21.7.2014.  The technical person was deputed by the respondents, who told that some parts are required to be replaced. But thereafter no person has come from the side of the respondents for the removal of the defects and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 and 2  have appeared and filed their separate reply.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has purchased one Split AC of O general Company from respondent no.1 worth Rs.45500/-.  The complainant was given sealed pack AC by the respondent no.1.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has purchased the AC from respondent no.1 at Delhi and no transaction took place at Sonepat.  The complainant has never approached the respondent no.2. However, the company is still ready to repair the AC as per conditions of warranty.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant, respondent no.1 in person and ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the AC of O General Company from the respondent no.1 on 23.3.2014 worth Rs.45500/-.

         The plea of the respondent no.1 is that they have delivered the sealed pack AC to the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that The complainant has never approached the respondent no.2. However, the company is still ready to repair the AC as per conditions of warranty.

         The complainant has purchased the AC on 23.3.2014 and he has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 18.3.2015 when the period of one year was likely to expire.

         In our view, the complainant has used the AC of the respondents for about one year though they were some defects in the AC.  So, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents.

         Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund 75% of Rs.45,500/- to the complainant and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.two thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The complainant is also directed to return the defective AC alongwith its accessories to the respondents.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                         (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                        President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                              Sonepat.

 

Announced 14.06.2016