Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/712

DARSHANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution: 12.10.2015

Complaint Case. No.712/15                                        Date of order:  12.09.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Mrs. Darshana W/O Mr. Bhupender kumar R/O 96-B, Deepark Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-43                                                                        

Complainant

VERSUS

Bharat Electronics through its prop. Mr. Krishan Lal shop no.8,9, furniture and Electronics Mkt. near Krishna Mandir, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043

           Opposite party no.1

Yadav Enterprises through its prop. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Associate Services Provider, Hitachi Hone and Life Solutions India Ltd. A-17, Adhyapak Nagar, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041

                                                                                                                      Opposite party no.2

Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India Limited, through its Manager, Branch office: 34, DLF Indl. Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015         

          Opposite party no.3

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present consumer complaint as stated are that Mrs. Darshana named above herein the complainant has filed the complaint against Bharat Electronics and others herein after in short referred as the opposite parties stating that the complainant vide memo no.523 dated 08.05.2015 purchased one two stars split air conditioner model no.218KUDB from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.3 on payment of Rs.31,000/-. The air conditioner within 15 days gave problem of dropping water from indoor air conditioner machine, less cooling and making Ice in pipe line of outdoor air conditioner machine. The complainant made complaint to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 replaced the defective air conditioner with a new air conditioner manufactured by Lloyd. The replaced air conditioner was not giving cooling. The complainant made complaint to the opposite party no.1. Who replaced the Lloyd air conditioner with a new air conditioner manufactured by the opposite party no.3. But the replaced air conditioner gave same problem. The complainant again made complaint to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 sent a mechanic. Who repaired the air conditioner. The air conditioner within a week stopped working. Therefore, the complainant again made complaint to the opposite party no.1. They sent mechanic. He attended the air conditioner but failed to repair it. On several reminders the opposite party no.1 sent another mechanic. Who made the air conditioner workable. But the air conditioner again gave same problem.

            That on 07.07.2015 the complainant again made complaint to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed and advised him to contact customer care service of the opposite party no.3. The complainant on 07.07.2015 approached the opposite party no.2. Who registered complaint no.15070701778 dated 07.07.2015. After several reminders mechanic of the opposite party no.2 checked the air conditioner and opined that the air conditioner has manufacturing defect. The opposite party no.2 again sent Mr. Manjit and Mr. Pankaj mechanics. They apparently repaired the air conditioner. But the air conditioner again within a week started giving problem of cooling. The complainant again lodged complaint no.15073000728 dated 30.07.2015 with the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 again sent Mr. Amit and Mr. Pankaj mechanics. Who told the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. The complainant several times asked the opposite parties either to repair or replace the air conditioner in alternative pay cost of the air conditioner. But to no effect. Therefore, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties neither replied the legal notice nor repaired, replaced or pay cost of the air conditioner. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.31,000/- towards cost of the air conditioner, Rs.30,000/-  as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,500/- cost of litigation.

            Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties. But despite service none of the opposite parties appeared. Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2015.

            When Ms. Darshana complainant was asked to file affidavit and documents in support of her complaint, she tendered her affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. She also relied upon receipt no.523 dated 08.05.2015, warranty card of the air conditioner and legal notice dated 31.08.2015.

            From perusal of the complaint, affidavit and documents relied upon by the complainant it reveals that the complainant vide receipt no.523 dated 08.05.2015 purchased one two stars split air conditioner model no.218KUDB from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.3 on payment of Rs.31,000/-. The air conditioner started giving trouble within a short period. The complainant made complaint to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 replaced the air conditioner with another air conditioner manufactured by Lloyd. The air conditioner of Lloyd also did not function properly. The opposite party no.1 on complaint of the complainant replaced the Lloyd air conditioner with another air conditioner manufactured by the opposite party no.3. The replaced air conditioner also did not work and started giving problem within a week. The complainant again lodged complaint to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 sent mechanics for repair of the air conditioner. They failed to repair the air conditioner and told the complainant that the air conditioner has manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties either to replace the air conditioner or pay cost of the air conditioner.

            We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.                                                                        The version and evidence led by the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged version of the complainant. The complainant from the unrebutted and unchallenged version and evidence has been able to prove that she purchased one two stars split air conditioner model no.218KUDB from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.3 on payment of Rs.31,000/-. The air conditioner within 15 days gave problem. The complainant several times asked the opposite parties either to repair or replace the air conditioner in alternative pay cost of the air conditioner. But to no effect. Therefore, the complainant has been able to show that the opposite parties neither repaired and replaced nor paid cost of the air conditioner. Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund cost of the air conditioner and pay compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.

Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.31,000/- cost of the air conditioner with interest @ 9% per annum from filing the complaint till actual realization and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on : 12.09.2017 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                   MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT