Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/59/2022

Mehar Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electronic point - Opp.Party(s)

Dariya Singh

20 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 59 of 2022

                  Date of Institution             : 24.03.2022

                                                           Date of Decision               : 20.03.2024

 

 

Mehar  Chand Sangwan, Advocate son of Sh. Khem Chand R/o Chamber No.372, District Courts, Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Electronic Point, Near Ch. Bansi Lal Ki Kothi, Hansi Road, Bhiwani through its proprietor.

 

2. General Fujitsu General Limited, 3-3-17 Suenaja, Takatsuku, Kawasaki 213-8502 Japan C/o Manager/proprietor General Room Air Company Vijay Nagar, Bhiwani.

….. Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Dariya Singh, Advocate for complainant.

Ops exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased an air conditioner from OP No.1 in Rs.23,000/- which manufactured by OP No.2.  It is alleged that after sometime of its installation, it did not work properly and was giving less cooling than assured by OP No.1. So, complainant approached OP No.1 who suggested to contact OP No.2. Upon complaint to OP No.2 telephonically as well as in written, no one came to check the AC. Complainant also made complaint on toll free number vide complaint nos. 1230322000359 and 123032200323 but of no avail.  It is alleged that when complainant went to the OP No.1 for replacing the said AC, OP No.1 misbehaved with complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss. In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions to Ops to replace the defective AC with new one, further to pay Rs.50,000/- towards harassment & diminish of reputation and  also to pay litigation expenses.  Any other relief, to which this Commission deem fit has also been sought.

2.                 Notices were sent to the OPs. OP No.1 did not appear despite service of notice, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.04.2023.

3.                 OP No.2 had put in appearance but did not file WS.  Later on it also did not appear and was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 02.06.2023.

4.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the record minutely.

6.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the air conditioner so purchased did not work properly since its purchase and installation. But despite approaching the OPs many times, they did not adhere the genuine problem of complainant. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the AC was having some manufacturing defect, therefore, the OPs did not come to rectify the same, as such, the Ops are liable to refund the cost of the AC alongwith compensation for harassment and other expenses.

8.                 Complainant in support of his version has placed on record purchase bill (Ex.C-1) which reveals that the AC was purchased in sum of Rs.23000/- from OP No.1 on 25.03.2021. Also placed on record a document pertaining to AC manual book as Ex. C-2 (1 page). Further, to strengthen his case, complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A which corroborates the version of complainant. In view of the above as well as the fact that Ops did not defend their case despite issuing notices to them. In such a situation, we have no option except to believe the version of complainant and that the air conditioner was having defect(s) in it.  Accordingly, we are of the view that the OPs were negligent, deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as have adopted unfair trade practice which dragged the complainant into this unwarranted litigation.  So, complainant must have suffered monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP No.2 is directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To replace the AC in question with new one of the same model and if not available then to replace with higher model, subject to return of the defective air conditioner to the OP No.2, by complainant. 

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                     In case of default, the OP No.2 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.    

Announced.

Dated:20.03.2024.