Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/63/2022

Anirudh - Complainant(s)

Versus

EESL - Opp.Party(s)

in person

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

Consumer Complaint No. :    63 of 2022

                                        Date of Institution            :    28.03.2022

                                                  Date of decision                :            02.01.2024            

 

Anirudh son of Sh. Lalit Agarwal, resident of  Gali Neem Chowk Naya Bazar, near Annakshetra Shiv Mandir, Bhiwani Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Manager, Energy Efficiency Services Ltd., 5^th & 6^th Floor, Core-3, Scope Complex, 7-Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

 

2. Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) 4^th Floor, Tower ‘A’, Unitech Business Park, Sector-41, South City-1, Gurugram, Haryana.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

Present:-        Complainant in person.

                    Sh. Rajeev Kaushik, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant in the month of December 2017 and January 2018 purchased 24 LED Bulbs (12+12) at the rate of Rs.65/- each, having three years warranty, from Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Bhiwani.  But no original bill for the said purchase was issued. Complainant has alleged that the OPs did not replace the bulbs despite being defective within its warranty period.  Complainant has alleged that the matter was brought into notice of the senior officers of the DHBVNL as well as OPs on 18.10.2018 but of no avail. Complainant has alleged that due to the act & conduct of OPs, he alongwith other customers have harassed.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss. Further to issue directions to OPs to replace the defective bulbs, to compensate him for Rs.1.00 lac and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses as well as to issue necessary directions to OPs with regard to their updation in online portal and services to customers.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and limitation etc. On merits, the contents of complaint have totally been denied. However, it is added that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has decided in many cases that an advocate cannot file a public interest litigation. OPs has also submitted that they demanded purchase bill from the complainant as the OPs always willing to perform their legal duties.  In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.                 Complainant side in its evidence produced documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence.

4.                 No evidence was produced on behalf of OPs despite availing several opportunities. Hence, their evidence was closed by Court vide order dated 15.11.2023.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Written arguments furnished on behalf of complainant.

6.                 Complainant in order to prove that he had purchased the LED bulbs from the OPs, placed on record purchase bills (Annexure C-4 & C-5).  He has also placed on record a newspaper cutting (Annexure C-3) whereby reveals that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the public at large was experiencing harassment and hardship. Complainant has also drawn our attention towards the complaints (Annexure C-1 & C-2) made to OPs qua replacement of the bulbs and to provide good services.

7.                 Learned counsel for OPs has argued that the OPs are always eager to provide good services to its customers and no complaint from anywhere has received so far and argued that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive only to grab money from OP department, which may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

8.                 After going through the material on record and hearing both the sides, we are of the view that complainant has been able to prove his case by submitting convincing and cogent evidence to support his version in the complaint. In such a situation, complainant must have harassed by the act & conduct of Ops, therefore, we see deficiency in service on the part of OPs and direct them to refund Rs.1560/- to the complainant subject to return of defective LED bulbs to the OPs. Further to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment as well as litigation expenses. The aforementioned directions will be complied within a period of 40 days from the date of passing this order. Failing which, the awarded amount shall be recoverable with simple interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

Announced in open Court.

Dated:02.01.2024.

                              (Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)       

                                                   Member                 Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission,Bhiwani.