Delhi

North East

CC/140/2016

Smt. Anjana Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gupta Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.  140/16

 

In the matter of:

	Smt. Anjana Sharma W/o Deepak Sharma R/o 1/1570, Near MCD School Mansarover Park, Shahdara Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Gupta Electronics 15-16 1157/1 East Rohtas Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

31.05.2016 10.01.2020 10.01.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant in the present complaint is that she had approached OP1 for buying a one and half tonne AC manufactured by O-General on easy installments without interest to be availed from OP2 payable within a period of 14-16 months. However, OP1 fraudulently sold a defective and different AC manufactured by Carrier on 03.03.2016 with false assurance to complainant of the same being of better quality. The subject AC immediately on installation and power switched on the said date caught fire due to voltage fluctuation and is not even giving proper cooling. Therefore alleging that OP1 had sold a defective and different AC to the complainant who is the widow by taking advantage of her gullibility and trust and OP2 harassing her for making timely payments of EMIs, the complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs praying for issuance of direction to OP1 to install O-General AC as promised and to both OPs to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for harassment, OP1 to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges and to refund Rs. 7,000/- paid by complainant to OP1 as down payment.
2. Complainant has attached copy of the purchase invoice no. 3977 dated 03.03.2016 issued by OP1 towards sale of carrier one tone Estrella Neo AC of Rs. 22,500/- to the complainant, copy of warranty card of voltage stabilizer of Sky Bird Company under stamped and seal of OP1 and Remote Manual and Users Manual Booklet issued by Carrier for said Window / Wall Type Room Air Conditioner and copy of emails exchanged between complainant and OP2 regarding loan repayment.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 03.08.2016. OP1 did not appear despite service and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2016. Notice issued to OP2 was repeatedly returned unserved due to incomplete address and having left the premises. Therefore complainant got dasti summons served on OP2 in February 2017 on request and filed affidavit to the effect that OP2 was functioning on the giving address and intentionally avoiding service.
4. Complainant also filed CD of conversation recording between her and OPs alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Due to deemed service u/s 28(3)(A), OP2 was allowed proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2017. complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments in reassertion of her grievance against OP and in hearing held on 13.03.2019, submitted that she has no grievance against OP2 with which the subject AC was financed and prayed for deletion of OP2 from the array of parties vide application and filed amended memo of parties. Therefore, the grievance is limited to OP1 henceforth OP.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant. In absence of rebuttal by OPs due to willful non appearance and failure to put forth defence, we allow the present complaint. We are guided in this respect by the order of Hon'ble National Commission in R.C. Raja Shekar Vs Anil Haridass 2003 (IV) CPJ 83 (NC) in which the Hon'ble National Commission upheld the order of Lower Fora directing the replacement of water heater with the brand ordered for in case of a different product sold. Further, Hon'ble National Commission in Super Engineering Corpn. (HUF) Vs Sanjay Vinayak Pant 1992 (1) CPJ 95 (NC) held OPs guilty deficiency of service in having sold defective goods as the goods supply to the complainant were materially different from goods sought to be purchased by the complainant.
6. We direct the OP to install one and half tonne window AC of O-General Brand in the premises of the complainant and also pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for mental harassment inclusive of litigation charges. On installation of the AC as directed, the complainant shall handover the Carrier AC back to the OP as is the settled law in cases of replacement ordered for defective goods. Let the order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on  10.01.2020

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member