Haryana

Kurukshetra

96/2017

KAran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electric point - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.96 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.05.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:07.05.2018.

Karan Singh son of Sh. Ram Pal, resident of Village Samshipur, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Electronic Point, Shardhanand Chowk, Red Road, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.
2. Blue Star Company Limited, Adarsh Mall, 4^th Floor, Plot No.50, Industrial & Business Park, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002, Tel.No.0172-2790482/5024000, through its authorized person.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006, Phone No.66026666.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Rajiv Gaur, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Parveen Chopra, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Atul Mittal, Adv. for the Op No.3.

                Op No.2 exparte. 

 

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Karan Singh against M/s. Electronic Point and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a Blue Star 3* Window AC from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- vide bill No.3269 dt. 09.05.2015.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said AC became defective with the problems of display.  The complainant approached the Ops No.1 & 2 regarding the said defective A.C. and the Ops No.1 & 2 replaced the display of A.C. but the said problem did not rectify permanently and the complainant again started facing said problem in display of the A.C.  The engineers of Ops No.1 & 2 replaced the display of A.C. 3/4 times but the problem could not be rectified.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to remove/rectify the problem of AC and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as cost of litigation. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 13.06.2017.  Ops No.1 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant got insured the A.C. with the Op No.3.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy of insurance was issued from Chandigarh where the Op is having its office.  It is submitted that the Op is having no branch at Kurukshetra, as such, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant disclosed the started facing display and other problems to the Op No.1.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  On the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 3 did not led any evidence.

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the case carefully.

7.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 09.05.2015 for the sale consideration of Rs.24,500/-. From the perusal of record available on the file, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it repaired from the Op No.2.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed partly and we direct the OP No.2 to repair the A.C. in question and to rectify the defects of the A.C. free of cost.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:07.05.2018. 

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member