Punjab

Sangrur

CC/529/2014

DINESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEE KAY ELECTRICALS - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR GARG

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    529

                                                Instituted on:      08.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       18.02.2015

 

Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Lachhman Dass, resident of House No. BX-350, Street No.21, Prem Basti, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Gee Kay Electricals, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur 148 001.

2.             Symphony Limited ‘Saumya’, Bakeri Cirle, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 (Gujarat).

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               Shri Rajesh Garg, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Shri Sunil Dabra, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dinesh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one cooler of Symphony from Op number 1 for Rs.9300/- vide bill number 272 dated 9.6.2014 with one year warranty. The grievance of the complainant is that when the complainant tried to move the cooler from one place to another, then the wheels attached with the cooler used to come out, which fact was brought to the notice of the OP number 1, who assured that the defect will be removed, but the same was not removed. As such, the complainant lodged the complaint with OP number 2, but of no use.  Thereafter the complainant lodged so many complaints with the OP number 2, who replied that the defect will be removed shortly and also gave complaint number along with code, but defect of the cooler was not removed.  Thereafter the complainant lodged so many complaints with the OPs, but all in vain and lastly on 29.8.2014, the OPs sent the message that the grievance of the complainant ahs been solved without doing anything.  It is further stated that the complainant had purchased the cooler for using the same in the summer season, but it could not use the same due to defect as stated above. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the cooler with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.9300/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further  claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the cooler in question from OP number 1 for Rs.9300/- vide bill dated 9.6.2014. It is averred in the reply that the air cooler was not working due to not taking care and maintenance as per the manual and the cooler might have become defective due to improper installation of the air cooler, improper ventilation in the room, power fluctuation or there may be problem in electrification at the place of air cooler installation. However, it is stated that the OP is ready to depute their service personnel to look into the matter and also to repair the air cooler, if at all required, to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

3.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not put appearance on 25.11.2014, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex. C-3 copy of email, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9 copies of photographs, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-11 copies of emails, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-17 copies of catalogue and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2  has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             In the present case, it is not in dispute that the air cooler in question was purchased by the complainant from OP number 1 vide bill dated 09.06.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. But, the Op number 1 did not appear in the present proceedings and chose to remain exparte. It is also not in dispute that the cooler in question was having one year warranty. The case of the complainant is that after using the cooler for a few days of its purchase, the wheels attached with the cooler on which the cooler is shifted from one place to another use to come out from its original place due to which the cooler could not be used even in the summer season.  It is further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that despite his best efforts, the OPs failed to set right the wheels of the cooler in question and due to that the complainant suffered a lot of harassment.  To support his contention, the complainant has also produced on record Ex.C-1 his own affidavit.  Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9 are the photographs of the cooler.  Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 are the complaints lodged by the complainant with the OPs.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has contended vehemently that the defect in the cooler arose due to own fault of the complainant and due to wrong installation of the cooler in question and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 or any of the defect in the cooler in question has been denied. 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced on record and find that the cooler in question was purchased by the complainant from OP number 2 on 9.6.2014 and within a few days of its purchase its wheels became defective and due to that the complainant could not use it during the summer season for which he spent a huge amount of Rs.9300/-.  It is on the record that the complainant approached so many times to the Ops for setting right the wheels of the cooler, so that he could make the use of the same, but the OPs failed to set it right during whole of the summer season despite best efforts of the complainant.   Though the authorised agent of OP number 2 has contended vehemently that they approached the complainant for setting right the cooler in question, but there is no evidence produced on record by the OP number 2 to corroborate such a contention.   The OP number 2 has only produced an affidavit of one Nitesh Sharma.  The OP number 2 has also written in para number 11 of the written reply that OP number 2 is still ready to set right the cooler in question.  But, there is no explanation from the side of the OP number 2 that earlier despite lodging of so many complaints by the complainant with it, why the cooler in question was not repaired as only the OP number 2 was to install the wheels of the cooler in question, which is itself a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2.

 

8.             A bare perusal of the whole file reveals that the complainant lodged the complaints with OPs within the warranty period of the air cooler i.e. after a few days of the purchase of the air cooler, but all in vain.  There is no evidence on record that the officials of the OPs visited the house of the complainant to set right the cooler in question and the complainant did not allow them to do so.   As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to check the air cooler of the complainant properly and make it fully functional by installing/replacing the wheels of the air cooler without charging any thing from the complainant to his entire satisfaction.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to check the air cooler of the complainant properly and make it fully functional by replacing the defective wheels with a new one without charging any thing from the complainant to his entire satisfaction.  It is further made clear that the Ops shall take the air cooler in question from the complainant at their own expenses and thereafter will install it at the premises of the complainant after making it fully functional within a period of 15 days of taking the air cooler in question.  The Ops shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 18, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member