BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

Suresh Kumar aged 56 years s/o Sh. D.N.Sharma, R/o H.No.395, Sector-7, Panchkula.

                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

1.     A2B Services, H.No.367, Ram Darbar Colony, Phase-1,     Chandigarh.

2.     Aggarwal Agencies, Plot No.172, Industrial Area Phase No.2,      Chandigarh.

        Second address:-

        SCO No.411-12(Back side), Sector-35-C, Chandigarh

3.     INALSA, Tuareg Marketing P. Ltd. 154, Bhalswa, Delhi-110033.

                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

                        Dr.Suman Singh, Member

For the Parties:   Sh. Rakesh K.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OP No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 29.09.2022.

                        Ops No.2 & 3 exparte vide order dated 14.12.2021.                                                

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are, that a sandwich maker/contact grill model Maxgrill was purchased by the complainant from the Opposite party No.2(hereinafter referred to as OP No.2) by making the payment of sum of rupees more than Rs.3,000; the said sandwich maker was having guarantee/warranty of two years qua any manufacturing defects in it as per booklet cum warranty card. It is stated that, in the month of January 2021, the sandwich maker became defective and accordingly, the complainant approached the OPs for replacement of the same on 30.01.2021 but the complainant was informed that the defects in the sandwich maker were repairable and accordingly, the said sandwich maker was given to Opposite party no.1 (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1) for carrying out the necessary repairs. The OP no.1 repaired the said sandwich maker on 01.02.2021 but he raised the demand of Rs.669/- qua the replacement of the thermostat as well as for the service charges. It is alleged that the defects in the sandwich maker had occurred during the warranty period but he was forced by the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.669/- qua the repairs vide bill dated 01.02.2021. It is averred that the thermostat of the sandwich maker had become defective within a period of one month from its purchase and thus, the said defect had occurred due to manufacturing defects in the said sandwich maker. It is stated that the OPs No.1 & 2 had forced the complainant to make the payment qua the repair of sandwich maker during warranty period and thus, the OPs had been deficient, while rendering services to the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony, physical harassment; hence the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to them; hence, they were deemed to be served and accordingly, due to the non appearance of OPs No.1 & 2, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 29.09.2022.

                Notices were issued to the OPs No.2 & 3 through registered post, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.2 & 3; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.1 & 2, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 14.12.2021.      

3.             To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-2 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including the written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that the thermostat of the sandwich maker, purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 on 18.12.2020, had became defective within a period of one month from its purchase. It was argued that the sandwich maker, as per instruction manual cum warranty card(Annexure C-1), was having warranty of two years. It is argued that the OP No.1 had wrongly charged a sum of Rs.669/- vide bill no.444 dated 01.02.2021(Annexure C-2) qua the replacement of the thermostat  of the sandwich maker, which had become defective during the warranty period and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the present complaint. 

6.             The OP  No.1 as well as the OPs No.2 & 3 have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notices and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.09.2022 and 14.12.2021 respectively and thus, the assertions made by the complainant against them go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             Evidently, the sandwich maker/contact grill in question was having warranty of two years as per instruction manual cum warranty card (Annexure C-1), issued by the OP No.3(manufacturer) as well as  the warranty card (Annexure C-1(colly)) issued by the OP No.2(seller). The OP No.1, who had carried out the repairs of the sandwich maker by replacing the thermostat, has been found to have charged a sum of Rs.669/- vide bill no.444 dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure C-2). Since the defects in the sandwich maker in question had occurred during the warranty period i.e. within a period of 45 days approximately from its purchase, so, the charging of sum of Rs.669/- by the OP No.1 vide bill no.444 dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure C-2) from the complainant qua the repairs, was not valid and justified. Moreover, the assertions and contentions of the complainant qua defects in the sandwich maker are unrebutted and uncontrovered; thus, the OPs No.1 & 2 has been found deficient while rendering the services to the complainant, for which, they are liable to compensate the complainant, jointly and severally.

8.             In relief, the complainant has claimed the refund of sum of Rs.669/- as paid by him qua repairs of the sandwich maker along with interest. Further, he has claimed of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. Further, the complainant has prayed for imposition of punitive damages amounting to Rs.50,000/-.

 9.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-:-

1.  The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.669/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum (simple interest) w.e.f. 01.02.2021 i.e. the date of payment of Rs.669/-(Annexure C-2) till its realization.
2. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.  
3. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to complainant as litigations charges.
4. The OP No.2(seller) is burdened with the punitive damages amounting to Rs.5,000/-, for selling of non merchantable product, which shall be deposited by it(OP No.2) in the account of the Poor Patient Welfare Fund(PPWF) through the Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research & Education, Chandigarh by way of DD/ pay order and accordingly, the OP No.2 is directed to send the DD/Pay order amounting to Rs.5,000/- in favour of the Direc5tor, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research & Education, Chandigarh for deposit  of the same in the account of Poor Patient Welfare Fund(PPWF).

10.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 22.07.2024

        Dr. Suman Singh         Dr.Sushma Garg           Satpal

             Member                            Member                 President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                 Satpal

                                            President