Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/240/2023

S AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMPLIFON INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NEHA AHLUWALIA

21 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/240/2023
Date of Institution	:	03/05/2023
Date of Decision	:	21/03/2024

 

S Aggarwal, aged 92 years, S/o Late Sh.Lal Manraj, R/o House No.244, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Amplifon (India) Pvt. Ltd., SCO 2417-18, First Floor, Near Aroma Taxi Stand, Sector 22C, Chandigarh, 160022, through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Ms.Neha Ahluwalia, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Viresh Dahiya, Advocate for OP (through VC).

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased the hearing aids from OP for Rs.2,90,000/- dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure C-1). After buying the hearing aids which were different/changed from the ones given for trial, the hearing aid turned out to be defective and not working properly. The complainant informed the OP about the issue many times that there is a fault in the hearing aid and they must be replaced as he could not hear properly. But instead of replacing the machine the representatives of OP just kept saying that the problem was with his ears and not with the machine and refused to give him a new piece to his satisfaction. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant is 92 years of age and hearing aid cannot improve the deteriorating condition of the ear due to old age as well as deterioration caused to medication. The complainant has not attached any report of experts i.e., electro acoustic analysis as such which would reveal that there is any manufacturing defect in the hearing aid. The only allegation raised in the complaint is regarding “not able to hear” which could be due to other health issues from which complainant is suffering. It is further stated that the OP has offered the complainant to replace the said hearing aid, with another hearing aid of same price range and not the one of less price as being alleged by the complainant, but the complainant has refused the said offer, demanding full refund. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant paid Rs.2,90,000/- from his hard-earned money to purchase the hearing aid in question. It has been alleged that the hearing aid purchased was not of good quality as compared to the hearing aid which the complainant used for trial period. As per complainant, it did not yield the desired results in form of hearing despite spending huge amount. Annexure C-3, is an email dated 02.05.2023 sent by the son of the complainant to the OP with a request of refund stating that even the cheaper machine purchased by them is giving better result/service. Annexure C-4, is warranty manual showing that warranty of the product in question is till 01.09.2026.
7.     As per the record, the hearing aids were tuned a no. of times within a month of purchasing but the complainant was not satisfied even once. The OP itself has agreed upon visiting many times to complaints, as per its written statement but could not satisfy the complainant, as he was not able to hear properly through these hearing aids.
8.     The complainant requested many times that there is a fault in the hearing aid and it might be defective and not working properly so they must be replaced as he could not hear properly with this machine. But instead of replacing the machine the representatives of OP just kept telling that the problem was with his ears and not with the machine and refused to give him a new piece to his satisfaction. Despite several complainants/ attempts to get the refund, the opposite party denied the replacement or refund without any valid reason.
9.     We feel that adherence to consumer protection laws and ethical business practices is not only a legal requirement but also an essential step toward creating an inclusive and fair marketplace. By adopting a proactive approach towards understanding and meeting the unique needs of disabled individuals, businesses contribute to a more accessible, diverse, and socially responsible environment that benefits society as a whole.

         The complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

10.     Hence, the act of OP for selling the substandard product, non-providing proper after sale services and forcing the Senior Citizen/disabled complainant in the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service and its indulgence in unfair trade practice.
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹2,90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards. The complainant shall, however, return the hearing aid in question to the OP.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
21/03/2024			[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls			Presiding Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member