Delhi

North East

CC/164/2017

Chand Mohd. Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aan Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 164/17

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Chand Mohammad Khan S/o Sh. Subrati Khan R/o E-13, Main 25 futa Road, Shri Ram Colony, Rajeev Nagar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.       3.	Aan Electronics 1/206/40, Sadar Bazar Delhi Cantt.,   Durga Air Conditioner D-8/185, St No. 8, Near Radhey Krishna Mandir, Brijpuri, Delhi-110094,   Godrej Industries Ltd. Godrej One, Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway,  Vikhroli, Mumbai-400079, India.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

22.05.17 07.02.23 31.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is the on 22.06.16 Complainant purchase an AC from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of  Rs. 25,990/- manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 with a five year warranty on compressor and one year warranty on all other parts (except grill & plastic parts) from the date of purchase, against defective material or workmanship. In case of any such defect found during the first year from date of purchase, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. , Appliance Division will undertake repairs to the warranted part free of charge. Complainant stated that he used the AC in question for 4 months and when he started the AC in March 2017 the said AC did not worked. On 29.03.17 Complainant lodged complaint vide complaint no. 2303249459. The engineer visited to check the AC in question. The Complainant had sent various complaints and reminders but Opposite Parties failed to repair the AC in question. The Complainant stated that said AC has 1 year parts warranty and 5 years compressor warranty still the Opposite Parties failed to repair the AC in question. Complainant has prayed to refund the cost of the AC and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment. He further prayed for Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 14.05.18.

Case of the Opposite Party No.3

3. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and filed written statement.  The Opposite Party No.3 stated that the Complainant made only four complaints in respect of said AC. It is submitted that Complainant made first complaint vide service order no. 249459 dated 23.03.17 and wet service was done and swing was also changed with full satisfaction of the Complainant. It is further submitted that AC was working properly.  Complainant made second complaint vide service order no. 261897 dated 11.04.17 and servicing was done with full satisfaction of the Complainant and AC was working properly. Complainant made third complaint vide service order no. 270351 dated 25.04.17 for cooling problem and wire of swing motor was adjust with full satisfaction of the Complainant and AC was working properly. Complainant made fourth complaint vide service order no. 277788 dated 12.05.17 for water dripping/leakage problem and display PCB was replaced with full satisfaction of the Complainant and AC was working properly. It is further submitted that all complaints were duly attended by expert technician within prescribed time with full satisfaction of the Complainant and AC was working properly every time. It is further submitted that all complaints were in technical nature.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.3 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.3

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit of Sh. Ajay Mathur, Branch Commercial Manager wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written argument filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased an AC from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 25,990/- manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 with a five year warranty on compressor and one year warranty on all other parts from the date of purchase, against defective material or workmanship.  As per the warranty conditions, in case of any defect found during the first year from date of purchase, Opposite Party No.3 will undertake repairs to the warranted part free of charge. Complainant alleged that only after 4 months of the purchase of the said AC, the said AC did not work properly and Complainant lodged various complaints with the Opposite Party to repair the AC and Opposite Party failed to do the same. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
8. On the other hand, Opposite Party admitted that Complainant made four complaints in respect of said AC and all the complaints were duly attended by expert technician within prescribed time with full satisfaction of the Complainant.  
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009 held that the onus of proof deficiency in service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant part of the judgment is as under:- 
10. ”The Onus of proof of deficiency of service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is the Complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the Opposite Party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”
10.  In the present case, the Complainant did not lead any evidence with regard to the mal functioning of the said AC.
11. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. 
12. Order announced on 31.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President