Haryana

Karnal

CC/540/2020

Ankush Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electronic World - Opp.Party(s)

Rampal Sharma

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 540 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.01.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:21.04.2023

 

Ankush Kumar, aged 26 years son of Shri Joginder Kumar, resident of village Manjura, tehsil and district Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Electronic World, 139, Dayal Singh Colony (Ground floor), Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its prop/partner.

 

2.     Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd., Onida house, G-1, MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 093, through its director/authorized person.

 

3.     Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd. Service Centre, Karnal through its authorized person.

 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Ram Pal Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Ankit Chaudhary, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary, member)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased an Onida AC-INV (5M), Model no.IR 185-ONX, In: no.# 19CA4#001744, out: T#T-19CA#000062 imported by OP no.2 and sold by OP no.1 in cash for the total consideration of Rs.36,000/- alongwith one stabilizer of Rs.3500/- totaling to Rs.39,500/-, vide invoice no.2070 dated 06.07.2020. At the time of purchase of said AC, OP no.1 assured the complainant that it is a very good product ad is giving very good performance and is free from all defects and is under warranty for a period of one year during which a free replacement or amount will be refunded, if any, defect occurred in the product. After some times, the AC became out of order and complainant made a complaint with OP no.1, the engineers of the OP no.3 visited the house of complainant and after checking of the AC, they came to know that the motors of the AC is defective one and is not repairable. But service engineer of OP no.3 did not replace/repair the motor of AC. Thereafter, in the month of August, 2020, the complainant approached the OP no.1 and made oral request to OP no.1 to get the AC set right in its working condition but none has come to the house of complainant to remove the defect of the AC. The complainant approached the OP no.1 so many times and requested to replace the AC or to refund the amount, but OP no.1 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly flatly refused to do so. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is distributor/seller and the OP no.2 is the importer and the OP no.3 is service centre are admitted to the correct. The works and liabilities of all the OPs are different and the OPs are not having any right to intervene into the deals of each other and all the OPs are separately doing their works and duties as per their respective responsibilities. In the present matter, there is no fault on the part of the OPs no.1 and 2. OPs had sold the product to complainant by explaining it all specification. OP no.1 said to the complainant that the product/Ac is having warranty of one year through the OP no.3, who is authorized service centre of Onida company. It is denied that OP no.1 had told to the complainant that during warranty period there is free replacement or the amount will be refunded as alleged. The OP no.1 had clearly states to the complainant that the entire responsibility of repair of product/AC during warranty period, if any, is only upon the OP no.3, who is authorized service centre of the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that complainant never complained about the defect of the product to OP no.1. Otherwise, the engineer of the OP no.3 had visited on request/approach by the complainant to OP no.3. Because neither the OP no.1 nor the OP no.2 are dealing in the repair of the products during warranty period, if any, complaint/issue arise then OP no.3 is the solely responsible to repair/resolve that issue. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; mis-joiner and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.3 was not entered into Service Agreement with the company of OP no.2. As the Service Agreement between the OP no.3 and the OP no.2 was executed on 01.11.2020 to 30.09.2023., however, the unit in question purchased by the complainant on 06.07.2020 and the complainant complained about the unit in the month of August, 2020. It is clear that OP no.3 is not necessary party in the present complaint, because the terms of OP no.3 i.e. Excellent Services had commenced from November, 2020 and in his complaint, complainant has not mentioned that he had visited the service centre of the company of OP no.2 after 1^st November, 2020 i.e. commencement of term of agreement dated 01.11.2020. It is further pleaded that prior to execution of service agreement between the OP no.2 and OP no.3, earlier there was existing service agreement between the OP no.2 and M/s Shiv Customer Care having address at 542-R Model Town, Karnal represented by its proprietor/partner Mr. Dinesh and terms of aforesaid agreement was commenced from 10.10.2019 to 09.10.2020. So, said service centre is necessary party in place of OP no.3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/tax invoice dated 06.07.2020 Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 09.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence Agreement Ex.OP1 and Service Agreement Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 28.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the AC in question from the OP no.1. After sometime of its purchase, the AC became out of order. Complainant made several complaints to OPs in this regard but OPs neither repaired AC nor replaced the defective AC and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that entire responsibility of repair of product/AC during warranty period, if any, is only upon the OP no.3, who is authorized service centre of the OP no.2. Complainant never complained about the defect of the product to OP no.1. The Service Agreement between the OP no.3 and the OP no.2 was executed on 01.11.2020 to 30.09.2023., however, the unit in question purchased by the complainant on 06.07.2020 and the complainant complained about the unit in the month of August, 2020. Thus, the no.3 is not necessary party in the present complaint and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, complainant has purchased the AC in question from the OP no.1 with the warranty of one year. It is also admitted that the AC in question became out of order during warranty period.

12.           As per the version of complainant, during warranty period the AC in question became out of order and complainant made a complaint with OP no.1, the engineers of the OP no.3 visited the house of complainant and after checking of the AC, they told that the motors of the AC is defective one and is not repairable. But service engineer of OP no.3 did not replace/repair the motor of AC.

13.           On the other hand as per version of the OPs, if there is any defect in the air conditioner then it is liability of the manufacturer to rectify the defect or to replace the AC in question

14.           The onus to prove its case was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove its case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, it has been proved from the record that the problem had occurred in the AC within warranty period and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the AC in question with new one of the same make, model and same price which was purchased by the complainant.  However, it is hereby made clear if the AC of the same make and model is not available with the OP, then the OP will return the cost of the AC i.e. Rs.36,000/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3300/- for the litigation expense. However, complainant is directed to handover the old AC alongwith accessories to the OPs. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable to comply the order. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.04.2023                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

      

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member