District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.45/2022.
Date of Institution: 20.01.2022.
Date of Order: 12.05.2023.
Deepak Yadav S/o sh. Raj Kumar Age 27 years, R/o H. No. 438, New Tilpat Colony, Near Yadav Medical Store, Main Tilpat road, Faridabad -121003 (Haryana).
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Bajaj Electricals Limited, Rustomjee Aspire, Bhanu Shankar Yagnik Marg, Off. Eastern Expess Highway, Sion (East), Mumbai – 400 022 (Maharashtra).
2. Trade Link, LG, 3,4,5, Krishna Kirpa-4, Subhash Nagar, Behnd Science Park, Jaipur – 302016 (Rajasthan) India,
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Raj Kumar , counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 01.03.2023.
Opposite party No.2 proforma Opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Majesty Duetto Gas 6 LTR Vertical water Heater (LPG) White, B014HDJ7ZE (Bajaj Majestly Duetto New) HSN:8419 on dated 05th November 2020 those sold by opposite party No.2 who was the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1. In the starting period water heater work properly but after few months in year 2021 water heater starts improper work so complainant lodged a customer complaint on dated 11.th October 2021. But all was vain. Complainant regularly lodged complaint from the period of 11th October 2021 to 18th December 2021. At last technician finally visit and surrender him and declare that the said water heater manufactured fault and he suggest changing the water heater. As per warranty card the water heater completely covered in 2 years warranty period and when complainant trying to change/replace the said water heart that time customer team refused. On 21.12.2021, complainant finally writes an email and request to resolve the said problem on quickly manner. But unfortunately no action taken by th customer care team of opposite party No.1. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) replace the defaulted water heater.
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. The case was fixed for filing reply on behalf of opposite party No.1. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. It was already 3.50p.m. Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.03.2023.
3. Shri Raj Kumar, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that I want to become OP No.2 Trade Link LG-3,4,5, Krishna Kirpa-4, Subhash Nagar Behind Science Park Jaipur as proforma OP No.2. Accordingly O.P No.2 was a proforma opposite party vide order dated 16.09.2022.
4. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
5 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties –Bajaj Electricals Limited with the prayer to: a) replace the defaulted water heater. b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Deepal Yadav, Ex.C1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 – warranty, Ex.C-3 – email.
7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party No.1 had not filed written statement to contest claim of the complainant despite availing several opportunities, therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.03.2023. Hence the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid evidence it is amply proved that opposite party No.1 has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the heater in question with the same model to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old heater in question to the opposite party after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 12.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
