BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 86 of 2015

Date of Institution: 05-2-2015

Date of Decision: 24-07-2015 

Mr.Arun Aggarwal son of Sh.Parmanand Aggarwal resident of F-7/50, Kashmir Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Ceasefire Industries Limited, through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principle Officer service through its Branch Office at A-5, Ranjeet Avenue Market, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate. 

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Pawan Sharma, Manager.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Arun Aggarwal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased the Fire/Smoke Detector System,  from the Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs.27,762/- with 5 years warranty. Complainant alleges that said Fire/Smoke Detector System was installed by the Opposite Party at the residence of the complainant in the mid of July, 2014 and to the utter shock of the complainant in the  midnight of 18.9.2014, said Fire/Smoke Detector System  started creating beep and sound noise without any reason and the complaint to the said effect was made with the Opposite Party on 19.9.2014 and the Opposite Party deputed its technician who after inspecting the said Fire/Smoke Detector System  came to the conclusion that the said Fire/Smoke Detector System  became defective and took away the same with him on the assurance that he would  install the new Fire/Smoke Detector System  in its place, the next day, but that next day has not arrived till the filing of the present complaint. Complainant has made several communications to the Opposite Party in this regard and even got served the legal notice dated 19.12.2014 issued from its advocate which was falsely replied by the Opposite Party that the complainant was not allowing to install the Fire/Smoke Detector System , the said excuse is against the prudence and common sense, the person who has got the said Fire/Smoke Detector System  installed for the safety of his house and inhabitants thereto will ever think of putting his house and life into danger and will compromise for safety and security.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to install the new Fire/Smoke Detector System or to refund the amount of Rs.27,762/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Sh.Pawan Sharma, Branch Manger appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party on 11.3.2015, but written version not filed by the Opposite Party despite repeated adjournments granted to the Opposite Party for filing the written version.  On 17.4.2015 Sh.Pawan Sharma, Branch Manager appeared on behalf of Opposite Party has made statement that  the company is ready to replace the smoke detector with new one. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party, so Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.5.2015 of this Forum. However, at later stage on 16.7.2015, Sh.Pawan Sharma, Branch Manager has joined the proceedings of this case. 
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the exparte evidence produced on record by the complainant  with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.
5. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased one Fire/Smoke Detector System from Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.27,762/- vide Invoice dated 30.6.2014 Ex.C3/ dated 4.7.2014 Ex.C4.Said Fire/Smoke Detector System was installed by the Opposite Party at the residence of the complainant in the mid of July, 2014. At the mid night of 18.9.2014, said Fire/Smoke Detector System  started creating beep and sound noise without any reason. The complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party on 19.9.2014 Ex.C5.    Opposite Party deputed technician who after inspecting the said Fire/Smoke Detector System  came to the conclusion that the said Fire/Smoke Detector System  became defective and took away the same with him with the assurance that they would  install the new Fire/Smoke Detector System  in its place, the  next day. But thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party nor installed/ replaced the Fire/Smoke Detector System  at the premises of the complainant. The complainant made several communications to the Opposite Party i.e. letter dated 25.11.2014 Ex.C6 and letter dated 27.10.2014 Ex.C7. The complainant also served legal notice dated 19.12.2014 Ex.C9 on the Opposite Party through registered post, postal receipt of which is Ex.C8, but the Opposite Party failed to install the Fire/Smoke Detector System  at the premises of the complainant nor refund the amount of Rs.27,762/- i.e. price of the Fire/Smoke Detector System  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
6. No doubt, Sh.Pawan Sharma, Branch Manager of the Opposite Party appeared, but Opposite Party neither filed any written version nor put forward any evidence to rebut the complaint of the complainant. However, said Pawan Sharma, Branch Manager of Opposite Party got recorded his statement on 17.4.2015 that the company is ready to replace the smoke detector with new one.  All this shows that the Opposite Party has admitted that Fire/Smoke Detector System  purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Party is defective and is not repairable that is why, the Opposite Party has made offer through their Branch Manager Sh.Pawan Sharma vide his statement dated 17.4.2015 that the company/ Opposite Party is ready to replace the brand new smoke detector in place of defective Fire/Smoke Detector System  of the complainant. Opposite Party gave this offer during the pendancy of the present complaint. Opposite Party neither repaired the Fire/Smoke Detector System of the complainant nor replaced the same with new one despite so many communications made to the Opposite Party and despite service of legal notice. So, the Fire/Smoke Detector System  purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Party is not repairable and the Opposite Party has now agreed to replace the same with new one and that too after filing of the present complaint. Certainly, the Opposite Party is in deficiency of service qua the complainant.
7. Consequently, we allow the complaint of the complainant with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to replace the Fire/Smoke Detector System  of the complainant with new one of same make and model, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated.24-07-2015.                                                             (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member