Haryana

Ambala

CC/58/2015

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Crockery Corner. - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

30 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                      Complaint Case No.:   58 of 2015

          Date of Institution    :  23.02.2015

          Date of Decision  :    30.10.2015     

Joginder Singh son of Shri Harbhajan Singh R/o H.No.286, Hissar Road, Durga Nagar, Ambala City..

                                                    ……….Complainant

                                                                                                     Versus

1.       Crockery Corner, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt-133001 (through its Prop.).

2.       Lamba Battery Center, Near Punjab National Bank, Durga Nagar, Ambala City. (through Its Prop.).

3.       Hindustan Limited, Unilever House B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai, Maharashtra-400099 (through its Manager).

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Ops No.1 & 2 exparte.

                   Sh. J.S. Rathore, Adv. counsel for OP No.3.

                    

ORDER

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant  purchased a PURE IT RO ULTIMA from the OP No.1 on 21.06.2014 in a sum of Rs.18,000/- vide bill no.6985 dated 21.06.2014 having warranty of one year. The complainant alleged that since its installation the RO was not working properly as its starting function was not correct and creating huge sound.  Several complaints in this regard commencing from 25.06.2014 to 15.01.2015 were made to the Ops but no action taken by the service center and the problems remain as such. As  per complainant, he also visited  many a times to the service center at Ambala City but the RO was not repaired by them till date.  Thus the complainant has alleged that this is clear cut case of negligence in providing service as well as committing unfair trade practice by the Ops.  Having no other alternative, present complaint has been filed by complainant seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Notices sent to the Ops.  Ops No.1 & 2 did not bother to appear despite registered notices. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.04.2015.

                   OP No.3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer as he is using the water purifier for commercial purposes since he is having one more water filter of their company and has very high usage. On merits, it has been urged that receipt of sale of R.O. by Op No.1 shows amount of Rs.10,000/- whereas complainant is alleging the sale price of RO is Rs.18,000/-.  It has been further submitted by the Op No.3 that their product is of high quality and the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended by the Ops each & every time and thus they have provided proper services to the complainant. As such, there is no  deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Rahul Bagga, authorized representative of answering company as Annexure RX  alongwith document as Annexure R-1 and closed their evidence. 

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of parties and gone through the record very carefully. To prove his version, the complainant has tendered document Annexure C-1 i.e. purchase bill amounting to Rs.18,000/- qua the sale of  R.O. in question by  OP No.1. Further in para no.5 of the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that  the said R.O remained defective from 25.06.2014 to 15.01.2015 which has been admitted by the Op No.3 in para no.5 of their written statement  contending description of work done by them on each and every complaint of complainant meaning thereby that  the R.O in question was having problem in it from the very beginning whereas on the other hand, the version put  by OP No.3 that the complainant is not a consumer because he was using the R.O. for commercial purpose is not tenable as he has not placed on record any document  or authentic evidence wherefrom it is concluded that the complainant is not a consumer. Further the dispute is in respect of the defects which had surfaced up in the R.O. in question during the period of warranty. The warranty is a service which is provided to keep the equipment/goods/machine etc. in perfect condition during the period of warranty irrespective of the fact that the equipment/goods are being used for the purpose whatsoever. Therefore, we are of the confirmed view that the R.O. in question  was having some inherent defect which could not be rectified by the Ops inspite of the various visits delivered by the OP’s representatives. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct  the Op No.3 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)      To replace the R.O. in question with new one and if the same Model is not available,  then to return the price of aforesaid R.O. amounting to Rs.18,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its purchase  i.e. 21.06.2014  to till its realization.

(ii)     To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment including costs of litigation etc.

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the Op No.3 within the stipulated period failing which the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 Announced:30.10.2015                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                               (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (PUSHPINDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER