Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/72

Vinod Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dawn Video - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

20 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPER

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 72 of 12.07.2019

                                 Date of decision                        :  20.11.2019

 

 

 

 Vinod Chopra aged about 70 years son of Late Sh. Banke Rai Chopra, resident of # B4/4/954, Ucha Khera, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar

                                                                      ......Complainant

                                             Versus

                   Dawn Video situated at Lehri Shah Mandir Road, Ropar, Tehsil &                              District Ropar through its Proprietor Anoop Kumar Gupta.  

   ...Opposite Party

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Vinod Chopra, complainant in person   

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.P.  

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Vinod Chopra aged about 70 years son of Late Sh. Banke Rai Chopra, resident of # B4/4/954, Ucha Khera, Ropar, Tehsil & District Roper, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the Air Conditioner  with fresh one; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment & mental agony;  to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses; award any other relief which this Hon'le Forum may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

2.       Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Air Conditioner of Hyundai Company for a sum of Rs.23,000/- vide bill No.17086 dated 29.6.2017 issued by the O.P. The complainant paid Rs.7668/- in cash and remaining amount was financed through Bajaj Finance Company Limited. After its purchase, the officials of the O.P. came to the house of the complainant and installed the same as per their understanding. After installation, the AC was not working properly and immediately the complainant complained the matter to the O.P. about the mechanical fault of the said Air Conditioner. But the O.P. did not respond properly and started showing rude behavior to him and told him that Air Conditioner would run properly after a few days. Till today, neither the O.P. replaced the Air Conditioner in question nor repair the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On being put to the notice, the O.P. appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that the O.P. had received complaint from customer after lapse of one year but O.P. gave the suggestion to the complainant that he had lodged the complaint before company service centre. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had visited the showroom of the O.P. and wanted to purchase one Air Conditioner of Hyundai Company, but at that time, he also wanted to finance that Air Conditioner from the Finance Company. O.P. had talked with Bajaj Finance Company to facilitate the loan facility to the complainant. At the time of sale, warranty card had also been given to the complainant and as per warranty card, warranty is given on complete product for one year and four years for compressor only. At that time, one toll free number was also provided to the O.P. so that in case any fault caused in the said product the complainant could approach the company. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with the documents copy of bill Ex.C1 & copy of account statement Ex.C2 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ex.OP1/A along with document Ex.OP1 & Ex.OP1/B and closed the evidence    

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.       Complainant Vinod Chopra made prayer that vide bill No.17086 dated 29.06.2017, he purchased one Air Conditioner from the O.P. against a sum of Rs.23,000/-. He paid cash of Rs.7668/- and the balance amount of Rs.15,332/- was financed by the Bajaj Finance Limited. He also made prayer that as per the bill dated 29.6.2017, O.P. sold the product of Hyundai company and at the time of sale it was in unpacked form. But when the complainant requested the O.P. for the finance facility then O.P issued the bill of the same date i.e. 29.06.2017 and of same No.17086 in the name of complainant and one Videocon make Air Conditioner one Ton Split. On the basis of bill of Videocon company issued by the O.P. it was financed by the Bajaj Finance Company.  Unpacked box/Air Conditioner was delivered to the complainant which is of Hyundai Company and the bill speaks Hyundai Company but when financed then the OP issued the bill of Videocon Company. Further since the installation of the Air Conditioner, this one ton Split AC is not working properly. He prayed to allow the complaint and also made the prayer that the complaint is within limitation and relationship as seller and consumer exists.

7.       Sh. Rajesh Sharma, counsel for the O.P. admitted the sale/purchase of the Air Conditioner and receipt of payment of Rs.7668/- cash and Rs.15,332/- through Bajaj Finance Company. He made prayer that purchase date is 29.6.2017 and the present complaint is dated 12.7.2019 and it is time barred. He secondly argued that in case the functioning was not proper then the complainant is duty bound to inform the customer care and if reported then the customer care is to hear the complaint and to remove the defect. Learned counsel has taken the plea that O.P. is the agent through whom the 'Hyundai' make Air Conditioner was sold and he being agent he has no duty to repair or to help the complainant. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with specific prayer that the sale is admitted and the product of Hyundai Company was sold, delivery was given to the complainant but the finance company denied the finance facility if the product is manufactured by the Hyundai Company therefore the O.P had issued the original copy in the name of complainant with recital/make 'Hyundai' Company and its second copy was given to the finance company with different product number of one Videocon Air Conditioner. This was done just to facilitate the loan facility to the complainant.

8.       Before coming to the conclusion, firstly it is to be appreciated whether the complainant is the consumer and complaint is within limitation period or not. During the course of arguments, O.P. alleged that it is a time barred complaint since the date of purchase but the complainant pleaded that the complaint is within limitation. Report of the Jr. Assistant of this office is dated 12.7.2019 speaks that the complaint was presented on 3.6.2019 and at that time, the office of the Superintendent was vacant. Superintendent of this office is competent to furnish the report as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. When the Superintendent reported for duty, he then after admission, issued the notice to the O.P. So, the complainant approached to the forum in the month of 3.6.2019 which is apparent from the report. Plea of the O.P. that the complaint is time barred is without merit because sale/purchase date is 29.6.2017. So the complaint is within limitation period and O.P. admits the relationship with complainant as consumer. So, it is a consumer dispute, complaint is within limitation and this forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

9.       Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove the illegal Act or unfair trade practice that point is to be appreciated in the light of pleadings and evidence. Complainant pleaded that the Air Conditioner of Hyundai make was sold and since the date of installation that was not functioning properly. The bill of the Air Conditioner Hyundai make one ton Split No. HS4F33 GCRON was sold and then financed by the Bajaj Finance Company Limited which is proved through Ex.OP1/B. At the same time, the complainant placed on file the bill dated 29.6.2017 bearing No.17086 and i.e. of one Videocon Air Conditioner one Ton Split bearing No.VS4T33 WVI. Against the said bill it is also mentioned by the O.P. that it was financed by the Bajaj Finance Company Limited.

10.     After appreciating the bill Ex.C1 relied upon by the complainant dated 29.6.2017 bearing No.17086 is issued by the O.P. in the name of the complainant with regard to the product of Videocon and the same was financed by Bajaj Finance. At the same time, there is another bill of the same number 17086 dated 29.6.2017 Ex.OP1/B in the name of complainant issued by the O.P. of one Hyundai Company one ton, split, Air Conditioner with recital finance by Bajaj Finance against a sum of Rs.23,000/-. Price is admitted, cash payment is not denied then loan facility is also admitted on the basis of which complainant paid Rs.15332/- to the O.P. and after purchase complainant returned the entire loan amount, copy of which is Ex.C2 but is still suffering because of the malpractice as well as issuance of two different bills of the same bill number and same date with different product. Since the date of purchase, the complainant is not satisfied with the services of the Air Conditioner as well as with the dealing of the O.P. The arguments of the O.P. counsel that due to recession, O.P. left the business and started new business that is not a sufficient reason. If the earlier product was sold in the capacity of an agent then O.P. cannot wriggle out from his legal liability. In this way, the complainant is able to prove deficiency on the part of O.P. who by adopting the malpractice of issuing two different bills one of Videocon Company and the other of Hyundai Company bearing No.17086 dated 29.6.2017 and then on one bill it proves that it was financed by the Bajaj Finance Company Limited. So the complainant is entitled to the relief.

11.     In the light of the discussions made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the OP to pay the price of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs.23,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum since the date of purchase of Air Conditioner i.e. 29.06.2017 till recovery with special cost of Rs.10,000/-.

12.     The complainant is directed to return the old Air Conditioner to the O.P. at the time of receiving the amount ordered by this forum. The O.P. is further directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.   

13.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith,           free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

            ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

            Dated.20.11.2019                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER