Delhi

North

CC/243/2023

VINAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAVELLS INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 243/2023

In the matter of

Advocate Vinay Kumar

443, 443A, Civil Wing,

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-110054              …                 Complainant

Vs.

M/s Havells India Ltd.

Through its Directors/ Key Managerial Personnel

904, Surya Kiran Building,

K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001

 

Also at:

M/s Havells India Ltd.

QRG Towers, 2D Sec-126, Expressway

Noida-201304 U.P. (India)

Tel: +91-120-4771000

Fax: +91-120-4772000

Email: marketing@havells.com              …                 Opposite Party No.1

 

Amazon.in

India Habitat Centre,

Institutional Area, Lodi Colony,

New Delhi, Delhi-110003                      …                 Opposite Party No.2

 

Dawntech Electronics Pvt,

Block C and D LOGOS Luhari, Logistic Estate

Village Luhari, Gurugram,

Harayana-124108.                               …                 Opposite Party No.3

 

Present:       Shri Himanshu Yadav, Ld. Adv. for Complainant.

ORDER

09/11/2023

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that OP-1 has delayed in repairing the ACs installed in his chamber resulting in loss of assignment that he was supposed to get. It is the case of the Complainant that he has purchased two ACs manufactured by OP-1 from OP-3 seller through the e-commerce platform of OP-2. The said ACs were delivered on 08.08.2023 and were installed on 09.08.2023. On 21.08.2023, as one of the ACs were not working, a compliant was lodged with OP-1. The service engineer of OP-1 visited on 23.08.2023 and informed that the gas got leaked during installation. Accordingly, another complaint was raised with OP-1 on 23.08.2023 and 25.08.2023. It is the case of the Complainant that the OP-1 finally repaired the faulty AC and filled the gas on 28.08.2023. This has caused a loss of assignment and loss of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

2. We have heard the arguments and perused the records. It is indeed a fact that the complaint was raised with OP-1 and admittedly, engineers of the OP has visited the Complainant on several occasions and finally the fault in the AC was resolved on 28.08.2023. There is a gap of 7 days from the date of institution of first complaint and final resolution of the defect by the OP-1. Such a delay of just 7 days is not blatant deficiency of service. The service engineer visited the Complainant several times and has identified the problem. OP-1 accordingly, rectified the defect. It is not the case of the Complainant that OP-1 has not taken any steps for rectifying the defect/ fault in the AC.

3. Further, on the issue that because of non-functioning of the AC, the Complainant lost his assignment; we are of the opinion that unless the OP-1 is informed about the possible professional loss due to deficiency of service of OP-1, the Complainant cannot claim compensation on such loss. There is no document in record that suggests that the OP-1 was previously informed about the possible professional loss because of delay in repairing the fault in the AC. Further the email on record by which the assignment of the Complainant was cancelled, it is found that the Complainant had ample time to set up his chamber. Admittedly, the ACs were installed on 09.08.2023, but the said ACs were not put in use until 21.08.2023 when the Complainant shifted to his chamber. It is not the case of the Complainant that he was not in possession of the chamber prior to 21.08.2023. The Complainant had enough time between the date of installation on 09.08.2023 and him shifting to the chamber on 21.08.2023 for ensuring that the ACs so installed are working properly. No such steps were taken by the Complainant during such period. This amounts to contributory negligence on part of the Complainant for which the OP-1 cannot be solely held responsible.

4. The Complainant has not alleged any deficiency of service qua OP-2 and OP-3 herein. The deficiency of service qua OP-1 is also not sufficiently established for raising consumer disputes under the provisions of the CPA, 2019. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this compliant. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself.

5. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping copy of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member