Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 230.
Instituted on : 29.05.2018.
Decided on : 27.05.2019.
Surander Kumar son of Sh. Ram Mehar Sharma, age 42 years, Resident of H.No. 140, Block- 378, VPO- Pauli, District Jind(Haryana)-126101.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. LS02306-00 Shri Ganesh Refrigeration, Jind (Phone- 9253111141).
2. Verma Electronics, 8, Palika Bazar, Rohtak- 124001.
3. Regional Office-
Blue Star, 6th Floor, Vatika Atrium, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurugram- 122002, Haryana.
4. Sales & Service Office-
Blue Star, Adarsh Mall, 4th Floor, Plot No. 50, Industrial & Business Park, Phase- 2, Chandigarh- 160002.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party No. 1 given up.
Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 already exparte.
Sh. Gaurav Arya, Advocate for opposite party No. 4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 12.07.2018, the complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner (Window) Blue Star from the respondent No. 2 vide invoice no.06AAGP8661G1Z9 dated 12.07.2017 for Rs.22,700/- with one year warranty which starts from the date of its purchase. It is alleged that since the date of its purchase, the complainant is facing problems in the A.C. as the AC is a defective one. The complainant made several oral and written requests and asked the opposite parties either to remove the defect or to replace the AC, but all in vain. It is further alleged that the service of the alleged AC was done vide Ticket Nos. S1802270029 dated 10.03.2018 and S1803030080 dated 10.05.2018, but all in vain as the complainant was suffering same problem again. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged so many tickets/requests to opposite parties as mentioned in the complaint, but all in vain, and finally on 27.05.2018 refused to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective AC is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.22,700/- towards the cost of alleged AC alongwith 18% interest and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 4 in its reply has submitted that the opposite party immediately upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, attended the complaint of the complainant and rectified the problem in the alleged product and since then the said product was working properly. It is further submitted that the complainant himself has admitted that the engineer of the company has done the service of the AC leaving no complaint in the same. That the complainant himself did not sign and acknowledged the service papers upon the visit of the engineer. That there was an issue of noise in the alleged AC and to remove the same defect the “Front Grille” was issued by the opposite party but on visit of the technician at the premises of the complainant, the complainant himself refused to enter and refused for the replacement of the front grille and never allowed the technician to check and rectify the problem. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties No. 4 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Whereas, notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 received duly served and notice was issued to opposite party No. 3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.07.2018 passed by this Forum, respectively.
4. Whereas, opposite party No. 1 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary vide his separately recorded statement on dated 10.09.2018.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.10.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 22.02.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the A.C. in question on 12.07.2017 for Rs.22700/- from the opposite party No.2 but date of purchase has wrongly been mentioned as 12.07.2018 in the complaint. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the alleged A.C. and the service of the alleged AC was done vide reference Nos. S1802270029 dated 10.03.2018 and S1803030080 dated 10.05.2018, reference no.S1805190625 and reference No.S1805060150 which is proved from document Ex.C2 but the defect could not be removed by the OPs. On the other hand contention of the opposite party No.4 vide its written arguments is that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has raised various disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner and would require elaborate trial. Ld. counsel has also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in Harbans & Co. Vs. State Bank of India, II(1994)CPJ476 and Jayantilal Keshvlal Chauhan Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994(1)CPR 396. But the same are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case, respondents were intimated 4 times by the complainant to remove the grievances of the complainant and also to remove the defect in the A.C. installed in the premises of the complainant but the respondents only argued that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and also pleaded that there is a complex question of fact and law, which would be decided by the Civil court. He has not placed on record any material to prove that the grievance of the respondent has been redressed by the respondent officials at any stage. So we came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that opposite party No.3 & 4 shall refund the price of A.C. i.e. Rs.22700/-(Rupees twenty two thousand seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.29.05.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant shall hand over the A.C. in question to the opposite parties at the time of payment made by them.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
