BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.322 of 2019
Date of Institution: 19.06.2019
Date of Decision: 30.10.2019.
Amit Kumar aged about 39 years son of Shri Brij Lal, resident of house No.616, Gali No.10, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Hissaria Sales Corporation, Rania Bazar, Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge/ Proprietor.
- Cruise Appliances Private Limited, G-2, Industry House, 23-B, Mahal Industrial Estate, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400093 its Managing Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. I.P.S. Fazil, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Shiv Dhanda, Representative on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant has purchased one Cruise air conditioner of 1.5 tones from op no.1 vide invoice dated 6.7.2018 on cash payment of Rs.30,000/- with guarantee of one year. That after one month of its purchase, above said air conditioner failed to release cooling air and it was told to op no.1, who sent engineer of company who repaired it by filling gas and assured for its proper working in future. But again said air conditioner became defective. Then complainant made complaint to op no.1, who assured for its repair after season but till date op no.1 has not tried to repair the said air conditioner despite his several requests. The ops have not cared to repair or replace the air conditioner till date and the act and conduct of the ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 failed to appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Op no.2 appeared and filed reply. It is submitted that contents of complaint are wrong and denied as many times their engineer visited to repair the air conditioner and they have enclosed the written consent dated 31.7.2019 under signature of complainant in which he has mentioned that his air conditioner is in working condition. As and when the complainant lodged grievance regarding air conditioner, op no.2 sent engineer for repair in warranty period. Remaining contents are also denied.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of invoice Ex.C1. On the other hand, op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Shiv Dhanda, Branch Service Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of mail Ex.R1 and copy of writing of complainant as Ex.R2.
7. Undisputedly complainant had purchased air conditioner on 6.7.2018 from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide sale invoice Ex.C1 and as per allegations of complainant, the air conditioner is not working properly and complaint was lodged with the ops. The perusal of evidence of op no.2 reveals that even during pendency of complaint, necessary repair was carried out in the air conditioner which is evident from the writing of complainant dated 31.7.2019 Ex.R2, but however, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that till date the air conditioner is not working properly and is not giving proper cooling, which may be the result of some manufacturing defect. It is settled principle of law that without expert evidence, no order for replacement of the product can be passed. But however, it is legal obligation of the dealer as well as manufacturer to provide after sales services to the consumer like complainant.
In view of above, present complaint stands allowed and the opposite parties are directed to carry out necessary repairs in the air conditioner in question of complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing any part without costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found that air conditioner is not repairable, then ops shall be liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model without any cost within further period of 15 days, failing which the ops shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e. price of air conditioner to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within above said period, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated: 30.10.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
