Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/361/2019

Schin kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hari krishna power - Opp.Party(s)

in person

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 316 of 2019

                  Date of Institution             : 13.06.2019

                                                           Date of Decision               : 16.04.2024

 

 

Sachin Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar R/o Old Bus Stand Road, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani  Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Hare Krishna Power, Opp. Jogi Wala Mandir, Loharu Road, Bhiwani-127021 through its Proprietor.

 

2. Havells India Ltd. (Made in PRC), Devraj Enterprises, Kishori Lal Seva Sadan, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani through its authorized representative.

 

3. Havells India Ltd., QRG Towers, 2D, Sector-126, Expressway, Noida-201304 (U.P.) through its authorized representative.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Sachin Kumar Singla, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Virender Sekhawat, Advocate for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for OP No.3.

OP No.2 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainant purchased a LLOYD Window Air conditioner from OP No.1 on 22.05.2018 in a sum of Rs.20,800/- vide bill no.135 dated 22.05.2018, having warranty of one year.  It is alleged that the AC was giving very low cooling. OPs were informed, who assured that after passage of time, it will give proper cooling. In May 2019, the AC did not turn on so complainant lodged a complaint on 03.05.2019 with OPs, upon which, mechanic visited the chamber of complainant  and told that there is some defect in the AC but no action was taken by the OPs in this regard. Ultimately, legal notice dated 21.05.2019 was served upon the OPs but the Ops did not reply the same.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss to him due to act of the Ops. . In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions to Ops to replace the defective AC with new one with fresh warranty or to return the cost of the AC alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.  Further to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards harassment suffered by complainant besides Rs.20,000/- a litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deem fit has also been sought.

2.                 Notices were served upon the OPs. OP No.2 appeared but did not file written statement despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.02.2021.

3.                 OP No.1 filed written statement admitting that the products was purchased by complainant from it manufactured by OPs No.2 & 3. However, the matter of warranty on any product is concern among the company and the consumer, the answering OP has no role or concern with it. As such, denied for any deficiency in service or any other negligence on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 OP No.3 filed its written statement taking preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi and that there is no report on file to prove inherent fault in the product. It is submitted that only one complaint was got registered by complainant on 14.05.2019 and to resolve the same, OP’s service engineer visited and replaced the PCB and the call was closed on 22.05.2019. The alleged calls by complainant on 06.05.2019 and 03.05.2019 have been denied. It is urged that when product can be repaired, the question of replacement does not arise.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and Mark A-1 and closed the evidence.

6.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Harsh Aggarwal as Ex. RW3/A and closed the evidence. No evidence tendered on behalf of OP No.1, hence, the same was closed by Court vide order dated 22.11.2023.

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

8.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the air conditioner so purchased him did not work properly but despite approaching the OPs many times, they did not rectify the defect properly within its warranty period. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the AC was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the OPs as such, the Ops were liable to replace the AC.  The counsel has also prayed for compensation for harassment and other expenses.

9.                 On the other side, learned counsels for OP No.3 argued that there was minor issue in the AC and the same resolved by replacing PCB of the AC in question.  Learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that the product was sold by it but it is not liable for any warranty or otherwise. As such, the counsels vehemently argued for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs being no deficiency in service or negligence on their part.  

10.               From purchase bill (Ex. C-2), it is evident that the complainant purchased the AC in question in a sum of Rs.20,800/- on 22.05.2018. It is emerges from pleadings of OPs that the product became defective within one year of its purchase and the warranty for one year not denied by OPs. It is also pleadings of OP No.3 that it had received complaint from complainant on 14.05.2019.  Further, to strengthen his case, complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A which corroborates the version of complaint.

11.                   In view of the above, we have observed that the air conditioner was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the Ops despite repairs. Accordingly, the OP No. 3 was negligent, deficient in providing proper services to the complainant which dragged the complainant into this unwarranted litigation because of which complainant must have suffered monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP No.3 being manufacturer of the product is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 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 to it, with fresh warranty, or to refund the cost of the defective air conditioner to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization, subject to return of the defective air conditioner by complainant to the OP No.3 at their service center at Bhiwani,   

(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.3 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% 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:16.04.2024.