Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/68/2021

Jagdeep Dhanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hari Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

A.K Vashisth

25 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 68 of 2021

                  Date of Institution             : 01.04.2021

                                                           Date of Decision               : 25.10.2023

 

 

Jagdeep Dhanda (deceased) through legal representatives:

1. Kamlesh-wife,
2. Sushant &
3. Nishant both sons of Jagdeep Dhanda R/o H.No.1943, Sector-13, (HUDA), Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainants.

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Hari Electronics & Company, Near Adarsh College, Hansi Gate Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

 

2. L.G. Electronic India, Head Office situated at Plot No.5, Surajpur-Kasna, Udyog Vihar Road, Greater Noida-201805 (UP), through its authorized agent/Manager.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

 

BEFORE:    Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. A.K. Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Ramesh Chander, authorized representative on behalf of OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a L.G. R.O. Water purifier WW130NP  from OP No.1, an authorized agent of OP No.2, vide bill dated 27.05.2020 in a sum of Rs.17,000/-.  It has been alleged that the said water purifier started creating problem since its installation viz. one liter purifying in about 10 hours and was creating heavy noise during its function.  So, complainant made a complaint through customer care of OP No.2 on 24.06.2020, upon which, the said purifier was repaired, however, after five days, the same problem created on 29.06.2020 and thereafter on 19.07.2020. On 27.07.2020, PCB of the RO was replaced, thereafter also on 21.10.2020, it created problem and the situation remained as such, till 08.02.2021 when the RO became totally out of order. Complainant has submitted that he has to repair his old aqua fresh repaired by spending Rs.3000/- approximately. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging defects in the product and deficiency in service on the part of OPs directing them to replace the R.O.  with a new one or to pay the cost of the RO alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till payment and also to pay difference of the RO, if any. Further to refund Rs.3000/- incurred on repair of old aqua fresh, to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.                 OP No.1 appeared through its authorized representative and filed written statement that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. On merits, it has submitted that complainant purchased the RO after satisfying himself from every angle. On complaint, engineer of company visited the house of complainant and repaired the same free of cost and advised for necessary precaution qua proper functioning of the RO but the complainant did not follow the same rather he used the RO roughly. However, RO of complainant was replaced with new one, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

3.                 OP No.2 did not appear despite issuance of registered notice, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.07.2022.

4.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on 21.04.2023.

5.                 No evidence produced on behalf of OP No.2 rather made a statement that written statement filed by it may be read in evidence and then closed the same.

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.

7.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the R.O. Water purifier so purchased him from OP No.1 became defective since its installation. But despite approaching the OP’s service center many times, defects could not be rectified by the OPs. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the RO was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the engineers of OPs, as such, the Ops are liable to replace the RO in question alongwith compensation for harassment and other expenses.

8.                 On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that on receiving complaint with regard to defects in the RO, needful was done and working of RO was set right but the complainant remained on adamancy that the product is having some more defects but in fact the same were not there, however, the RO was replaced. Thus learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the product was OK to the satisfaction of the complainant.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

9.                 Learned counsel for complainant to prove the case has placed on record copy of purchase bill of the RO in question (Ex. C-1) and the RO did not work properly on various dates, placed on record a list as Annexure C-2.  Admittedly, the RO was having some defects and thus the same was not rectified by the engineers of OPs and lastly as per version of OPs, the RO was replaced with new one. But there is no record on file that the RO was replaced by the Ops with new one. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that the RO became defective since its installation but defects could not be rectified by the Ops, meaning thereby that Ro was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the Ops. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP No.2-manufacturer is deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as has sold the defective product to the complainant. Whereas no deficiency in service is attributed against OP No.1 as it has only sold the product on a petty margin and in the such condition as he received from OP No.2 company. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.2 is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To refund the purchase amount of the RO in question to the tune of Rs.17,000/- (Rs. Seventeen thousand) to the complainants alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual realization, subject to deposition of the old/defective RO by complainant(s) with OP No.1.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant(s) at the hands of OP No.2.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    All the aforesaid amounts shall be distributed among the complainants in equal share.  In case of default, the OP No.2 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

 

Announced.           

Dated: 25.10.2023

(Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)

.                                     Member                              Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.