Haryana

Kaithal

93/19

Rajbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dimple Sony Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.93/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.04.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:10.04.2023.

Rajbir Singh S/o Sh. Thandi Ram, resident of near KVM School VPO Pai, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Dimple Sony Plaza, New Grain Market, Pai Road, Pundri-136026 through its proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Uppal.
2. M/s. Mahadev Enterprises, Opp. Jai School, Ashoka Garden Colony Kaithal through its proprietor/partner Anil Saini Mob. No.97296-97333, 98132-93432.
3. Videocon Industries Limited, 14 KM Stone, Aurangabad Paithan Road, Village Chittergaon, Tulka Paithan, Aurangabad (Maharashtra 431105) Maharashtra Mob.+912431-251501, +912431-251505.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.    

                OP No.1 exparte.

                Sh. P.S.Walia, Advocate for the OP No.2.

                OP No.3 given-up.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Rajbir Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a Split AC 1.5 ton of Videocon Company for the sum of Rs.34,500/- from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.047 dt. 05.07.2016 against the warranty of five years.  In the month of September, 2018 due to fault in the said AC stopped to work.  The complainant lodged complaint through online on the website of the company and an employee/technical person came from the service-centre but he failed to remove the defects of AC rather he took Rs.500/- from the complainant.  The complainant requested the Ops to replace the said defective AC with the new one but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 03.02.2020 passed by this Commission.  OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that on the complaint of complainant, the technician of answering OP visited the house of complainant and found the manufacturing defect in the A.C. and he provided this information to the complainant and also referred to NRM of the OP No.3 through online for replacement of the A.C., whereas the question of charging the amount of Rs.500/- for the service charge is wrong and totally false; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

                OP No.3 was given-up by ld. counsel for the complainant vide separate statement recorded on 17.03.2020.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and ld. counsel for the OP No.2 and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a Split AC 1.5 ton of Videocon Company for the sum of Rs.34,500/- from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.047 dt. 05.07.2016 against the warranty of five years.  In the month of September, 2018 due to fault in the said AC stopped to work.  The complainant lodged complaint through online on the website of the company and an employee/technical person came from the service-centre but he failed to remove the defects of AC rather he took Rs.500/- from the complainant.  The complainant requested the Ops to replace the said defective AC with the new one but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 argued that on the complaint of complainant, the technician of OP No.2 visited the house of complainant and found the manufacturing defect in the A.C. and he provided this information to the complainant and also referred to NRM of the OP No.3 through online for replacement of the A.C.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2.   

8.             An application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was moved by the complainant for technical expert to see the defect in the aforesaid AC.  Mark-A is the report of technical expert namely Anil Kumar Dhull, Mech. RAC Instructor, ITI, Kaithal vide which it has been stated that main PCB of the AC has been burnt out, wiring & Thimble of the PCB has been burnt out, Relay & Ther electronic part like DIODE TRANSISTER of the AC main PCB has been burnt out.  The said expert has also reported in the said report that the AC is not in working condition.

 9.            The main contention of complainant is that the said AC was having manufacturing defect but he has failed to produce on file any report of engineer which could prove that the said AC was having any manufacturing defect.  The aforesaid expert has mentioned in his report that the main PCB of the AC was burnt out and he has not mentioned any manufacturing defect in the AC.  Moreover, for the sake of arguments, if we presume that there was any manufacturing defect in the said A.C., then the same was to be replaced by the company i.e. OP No.3 but the OP No.3 was already given-up by ld. counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement on 17.03.2020.  It is also clear from the pleadings of complaint that the AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 05.07.2016 and the same stopped work due to fault in the month of September, 2018 which means that the complainant has used the said AC for more than two years.

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we direct the Op No.1 to repair the said A.C. and to replace the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant.  There is no order as to costs.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted partly against OP No.1 and dismissed against OPs No.2 & 3. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent-OP No.1 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:10.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.