Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/136

Vinod Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jindal Mart and another - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :                 136 of 2021

Date of Institution:     10.09.2021

Date of Decision :     08.12.2022

 

Vinod Goyal aka Gola son of Hans Raj resident of #B-6-19, Ghasi Ram Street, Railway Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                              .......Complainant

Versus

1. Jindal Mart, Circular Road, Near Mohalla Mahi Khana, Street No.6, Faridkot through its proprietor.
2. Hindware Appliances, Somany Home Innovation Limited 68, Echelon Inst. Area, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana through its MD.

                     .......Opposite Parties

          Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Adv. Ld Counsel for complainant,

                 OPs Exparte.

 

 

 

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OPs for selling defective R.O., for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OPs to pay repair charges and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 31.05.2021, complainant purchased an R.O.+UF Advance Cooper + Eloyna made Hindware from OP-1 manufactured by OP-2, against bill no.1886 dated 31.05.2021 for Rs.8,500/- and at the time of purchase, OPs one year guarantee for every kind of defect in said R.O. It is alleged that just after two months of purchase, said R.O. stopped working on 03.08.2021. Complainant made complaint on the Hindware Appliances Apps of the OP-2 and after about 4 days of said complaint, OP-2 sent their mechanic, who repaired the same, but on same day i.e on 07.08.2021, said R.O. again went out of order and therefore, complainant made call on customer care number of OP, who assured to make

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

repair within 24 hours, but even after four days of said complaint on customer care number, OPs did not sent their mechanic to repair R.O., rather on further complaint by complainant, they started putting him off on one pretext or the other. Thus, due to default on the part of OPs, complainant and his family were forced to drink unfit water. It is submitted that when OPs did not sent their mechanic to repair the R.O. then,  complainant got repaired the same by contacting a private mechanic and paid Rs.635/-to him on 16.08.2021. It is further submitted that despite repeated complaints and several requests made by complainant, OPs did not bother to provide efficient services and to resolve the matter, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                         Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 16.09.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

4                                                        OPs appeared in this Commission through their representative and filed written version, wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted that complainant purchased the said product from then. It is also admitted that complainant made complaint on their toll free number regarding defect in said R.O. and they sent their specialist engineer to check the water purifier. Said Service Engineer checked the purifier and found that water supplied to the tank was not fulfilled properly, therefore, he made adjustment accordingly and resolved the matter and he also asked complainant to do the plumbing work properly, so that inlet water supplied to water purifier is in proper condition and adequate pressure. It is also admitted that complainant again made a complaint on 07.08.2021 and on his complaint, their Service representative contacted complainant and scheduled the visit but complainant himself denied to take services saying he had got done the work from local vendor and himself cancelled the call on 13.08.2021. Meaning thereby, there is no deficiency in service on their part. complaint filed by him is an abuse of process of law and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

 

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

OPs have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                               Parties were given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence to prove their pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-5 and closed the same on behalf of complainant.

6                         After filing written statement, nobody appeared in this Commission on behalf of OPs and therefore, vide order dated 03.08.2022, OPs were proceeded against exparte.

7                              We have heard the exparte arguments advanced by learned counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through and perused the affidavits & documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                               It is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased one R.O. from OP-1 for Rs.8,500/- that carried the warrantee of one year for every kind of defect, but just after two months of purchase, said R.O. stopped working. Complainant made complaint regarding this effect and after about 4 days, OP-2 sent their mechanic, who repaired the same, but on the same

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

day, it again went out of order. He again made complaint and OPs assured to make repair within 24 hours, but they did not send their mechanic for repairing the said R.O., rather they started putting him off on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant got repaired the same by contacting a private mechanic and paid Rs.635/-to him from his own pocket in spite of the fact that it was under warrantee period.

9                                  Grievance of the complainant is that OPs did not provide timely and effective services regarding product in question, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. OPs sold defective product and that amounts to trade mal practice on their part. They have not taken effective steps to rectify the product and to remove the defect from said R.O. Even assurance given by OPs that their product would be of best quality and in case of any defect, services would be provided immediately, were fruitless. Despite repeated phone calls and several requests, OPs did not pay any heed to redress the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs.

 

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

10                                         Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his grievance. Ex C-2 copy of bill is sufficient to prove the fact that complainant is the consumer of OPs and he purchased said equipment from OP-1 for Rs.8,500/-. Careful perusal of documents Ex C-4 i.e copy of bill for Rs.635/-that complainant paid to some another mechanic for repair of said R.O., fully illustrates the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-5 affidavit given by said private mechanic Umesh Kumar son of Mangli Ram also justifies the pleadings made by complainant that product in question was defective one and complainant had to  incur repair charges from his own pocket in spite of the fact that said R.O. was covered under warrantee period, but complainant had to hire services of some other mechanic to get repaired the said R.O. due non provision of active and timely services by OPs. Ex C-3 reveals the fact that product sold by OPs was having some defect requiring services. OPs could not justify their position regarding all such issues. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings. All documents placed on record by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

11                        From the careful perusal of evidence and record placed on file, it is observed that there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

parties in providing services. Opposite parties have breached the trust of its customer, by not repairing the said product despite repeated requests by complainant. Despite complaints and requests made by complainant, act of OPs in not resolving the matter amounts to trade mal practice. Had OPs taken effective measures of checking the product or had they taken appropriate steps earlier on first complaint made by complainant at the initial stage, then  fate of complaint would have different or perhaps there would have been no complaint at all. But OPs have indulged in wrong practice in dealing with its customers and failed to render effective and efficient services, which amounts to deficiency in service.

12                                   In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OPs and  Opposite Parties are directed to refund the repair charges of Rs.635/- that complainant had to incur for repair of said R.O. and OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.1,000/-as expenditure incurred by him on litigation. Compliance of this order be made

c.c. no. 136 of 2021

within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : .08.12.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                         

Member                          Member