Haryana

Sonipat

CC/377/2015

Kuldeep Dahiya S/o Mahender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dinesh Puri Prop. M/s Puri Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Singh Dahiya

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.377 of 2015

Instituted on: 07.10.2015                 

Date of order: 01.03.2016

 

Kuldeep Dahiya son of Mahender Singh r/o H.No.435/30, Garhi Brahmnan, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.Dinesh Puri, Prop. M/s Puri Traders, 9 MC Market, near PWD Rest House, Sonepat.

2.M/s Symphony Co., Symphony House, FPIZ-TP 50, Bodakdev, Off. S-G Highway, Ahmedabad through its Managing Director.

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Ram Singh Dahiya, Adv. for complainant.

Respondent no.1 in person.

Sh.Satender Kumar & Atul Katiyar for Respt. No.2.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V.Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he has purchased  one cooler make Symphony Window-41 from respondent no.1 vide bill no.13123 dated 6.6.2014 for Rs.8000/-. But it had worked properly only for few days and thereafter, the motor started giving problems and the complainant has made so many complaints to the respondents, but of no use.  The complainant has also requested the respondents either to replace the defective cooler or to refund the cost of the cooler to the tune of Rs.8000/- with interest, but of no use.  Even the legal notice dated 4.8.2015 served upon the respondents have not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their  joint written statement submitting therein that the air cooler was not working due to not taking proper care and maintenance.  Cooler might have become defective due to improper installation, power fluctuation or improper ventilation. It is submitted that the respondents are ready to depute our service personnel to look into the matter and to repair the said air cooler to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have supplied the defective cooler to the complainant as it has worked properly only for few days from the date of its purpose.

         On the other hand, the respondents have submitted that the air cooler was not working due to not taking proper care and maintenance.  Cooler might have become defective due to improper installation, power fluctuation or improper ventilation. It is submitted that the respondents are ready to depute our service personnel to look into the matter and to repair the said air cooler to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant.

          The bare perusal of the complaints made by the complainant to the respondents on different dates itself shows that there was defect in the cooler due to some manufacturing defects therein.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that despite repeated complaints, the fault of the cooler was not removed and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 to replace the defective cooler of the complainant with new one and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.One Thousand for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The complainant is also directed to return the old defective cooler chasis no.0310814105376 to the respondent no.2.  The respondent no.2 is directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the law will take its own recourse.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

Prabha Wati Member    DV Rathi Member     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP             DCDRF SNP         President, DCDRF

                                               SNP.

ANNOUNCED 01.03.2016