Haryana

Kaithal

CC/160/2022

Kitab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ahuja Sales Agency - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ved Parkash

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.160/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 27.06.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:06.06.2023.

 

Kitab Singh aged 53 years son of Shishu Ram, 207/1, Friends Colony near Shri Hanuman Vatika, Karnal Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and  District Kaithal.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Ahuja Sales Agency Gandhi Park Market, Main Bazar, Kaithal, Shop No.1 and Koel Complex Market, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal through its proprietor/Authorized Signatory Shri Deepak Ahuja.
2. ONIDA MIRC Electronics Limited, Onida House, G-1, M.T.D.C. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 093 through its Chief Executive Officer. 

….OPs.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. V.P.Kaindal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OPs exparte.

               

ORDER

SUMAN RANA, MEMBER

        Kitab Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.  

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a ONIDA Split AC on 26.07.2021 from the OP No.1 for the sum of Rs.26,500/- against the warranty of five years.  After some time of its purchase, the said A.C. became non-functional on 16.05.2022 and upon this, the complainant made a complaint No.2205 P486380176 on 17.05.2022, 2205P 486-380228 dt. 22.05.2022, 2205P 486 380264 dt. 29.05.2022, 2206P 486 380043 dt. 05.06.2022 and 2206P 486 380106 dt. 11.06.2022 to the OP No.1 and every time, the mechanic of OPs visited the premises of complainant but could not remove the defects from the A.C.  The complainant requested the OPs to replace the said defective A.C. but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

3.             Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.06.09.2022 of this commission.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a ONIDA Split AC on 26.07.2021 from the OP No.1 for the sum of Rs.26,500/- against the warranty of five years.  After some time of its purchase, the said A.C. became non-functional on 16.05.2022 and upon this, the complainant made a complaint No.2205 P486380176 on 17.05.2022, 2205P 486-380228 dt. 22.05.2022, 2205P 486 380264 dt. 29.05.2022, 2206P 486 380043 dt. 05.06.2022 and 2206P 486 380106 dt. 11.06.2022 to the OP No.1 and every time, the mechanic of OPs visited the premises of complainant but could not remove the defects from the A.C.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

7.             The complainant has supported his versions by filing affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3.  Annexure-C1 is the bill from which it is clear that the complainant purchased the A.C. in question from the OP No.1 on 26.07.2021.  Annexure-C2 is the envelop and on the envelop, the aforesaid complaint numbers alongwith dates made by the complainant with the OPs are mentioned.  Annexure-C3 is the copy of terms and conditions of warranty, wherein warranty of sixty months of ONIDA A.C. has been mentioned.  The complainant has testified all the contents in the affidavit so set out by him in the complaint.  Whereas, OPs are also proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time.  So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops.  The counsel for the complainant has stated that the A.C. in question is defective and is not in working condition and request for refund of cost of A.C. in question.  Reliance is placed on the authority given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Vs. D.H.L. Worldwide 1996(4) SCC 704, in which it has been held that in case of specific term in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract.  Support can be taken from the authority laid down by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case titled as M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sashi Srivastava, 1(2000) CPJ 162, in which Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ordered for the refund of the amount in case of failure of ordered to replace.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The OPs are jointly and severally are directed to refund the amount of Rs.26,500/- to the complainant as mentioned in Annexure C1 within 45 days from today.  However, the complainant is also directed to submit the A.C. in question with the OPs at the time of payment.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  It is also made clear that if the OPs are failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.26,500/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.    

9.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:06.06.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.     Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.