ORDER
PER NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
Complainant purchased and an air-conditioner from OP2 wide invoice bearing number 13538 dated23/4/2013 for Rs. 18,800. It is alleged by the complainant that despite his request OP2 did not write the model number serial number and the name of the AC on the invoice. It is further alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid AC was installed on 28/4/2013 at his premises. During the Installation, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the AC was installed was not of the make or model which was seen at the shop of OP2 seen or ordered by him. It is further alleged by the complainant that while installing AC, the employee of OP2 had a Opined that the AC Was Of an old model and appeared To have been removed from some other place and Installed in his premises. The Complainant visited the shop of OP2 and raised an objection regarding the invoice andAC. . the OP2 assured the Complainant to make the necessary changes in the invoice and the Replace the AC on 6 May 2013. The Complainant again visited the office of OP2on 6 May 2013 but OP2 started putting the matter off on one pretext or the other the complainant madeSeveral phone calls ToOP2, but the OP2 had not taken any action ForThe redressal of his grievances. It is further alleged by the complainant that since the OP2 had not been taking action for the redressal or his grievances, he served a legal notice dated 13 May 2013 to both the OP s but all in vain. The OPs have neither replied to the legal Notice nor ReplacedThe AC till today . hence the complainant has filed the present complaint.
Notices of the complaint were sent to the OPs By registered postA.D.On 6 May 2014. The notices were not received backUnserved and therefore service was presumed to have been effected on the OPs. Since none had appeared on behalf of OP2 was ordered to be ProceededWithExparte. OP1has Howevercontested the complaint and Fileda Writtenstatement it has denied any deficiency on its part it has claimed that has been unnecessarily arrayed as a party, Whenneither its product is alleged to be defective nor there is any deficiency or negligence established against it. It has prayedfor the dismissal of the complaint againstIt.
The complainant has filed His evidence by way of his affidavit and has placed on record the copy of the invoice dated 23-4- 2013. He has also placed on record the copy of legal notice dated 13 May 2013 along with its postal receipts which was sent to the Opposite parties.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record it is alleged by the complainant that OP2 has not provided the AC of the make / model which was ordered by him he has further Allegedthat the OP2 had intentionally not mention the model number, Serialnumber and the name of the AC as it is a deffective one and it is further alleged by the complainant that as a point by the employer of OP2 at the time of installation, aforesaid EC had been removed from some other place and start his premises. Despite the repeated follow-up, phone calls, OP2 had not taken any action for the revision of his grievances which amounts to unfair trade practices and efficiency in service.
The complinant had also sent a legal notice dated the might know that the to OP2. OP2 had failed to comply with an the allegation levelled in the notice.
In a number of cases, courts have held that where seriousallegations are made against a noticee in a notice and the allegations are not refuted and the notice is simply ignored, a presumption may be drawn that the allegations made in the notice are true. (See Kalu Ram VsSita Ram 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis Travels vsSumitKalra&Another 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB).
The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The bare perusal of the complaint had leveled all the allegations against OP2 and not against OP1. We, therefore, are of the opinion that OP1 is not guilty of any deficiency in service, infact OP2 which is accountable to the allegations leveled by the complainant.
From the unrebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the document placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. We hold OP2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:-
- Reufnd to the complainant a sum of rs. 18800- as a cost of Air Conditioner.
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000- as compensation for pain and mental agony suffered by him.
- To pay to the complainant a sum of rs. 2,500/- as a cost of litigation.
- After the aforesaid payment, OP2 may take back the AC supplied to the complainant.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
