Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/183/2021

Shivam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kanha Elect. - Opp.Party(s)

Monika Jain

22 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 183 of 2021

                  Date of Institution             : 10.09.2021

                                                           Date of Decision               : 22.11.2023

 

 

Shivam Mishra, Customer ID1788088 R/o House No.65, Bhagat Singh Marg, Vidya Nagar, Meham Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Kanha Electronic, Hansi Gate, Opposite Adarsh College, Bhiwani, through its Proprietor.

 

2. Samsung India, 20 to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road,

Sector 43, Gurugram through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:    Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Smt. Monika Jain, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Advocate for OP No. 2.

OP No.1 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Sumsung Air Conditioner vide bill No. SC3375 dated 25.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.38,700/-, allegedly, having warranty of one year from the date of its purchase for all defects and 10 years for any manufacturing defect.  It has alleged that after three months, the AC started giving severe problem like its outer unit stopped working in the year 2017 itself.  Complainant contacted OP No.1 who suggested to contact OP No.2. Upon which, AC was repaired by the OPs but it again did not work properly after three months of its repair. So, the AC was again picked up from the premises of complainant, and employee of service center told to pay standard service charges as well as repairing charges. However, complainant paid the said charges.  Complainant has alleged that the OPs could not resolved the defects of the AC despite repeated repairs which amounts to deficiency in service on their part resulting into monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment. So, legal notice dated 12.07.2021 was got served upon the OPs but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking directions against the OPs to handover new air conditioner or to pay a sum of Rs.38,700/- alongwith interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, further to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.  Any other relief, to which this Commission deem fit may also be awarded in favour of complainant.

2.                 OP No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed reply, admitting that the product was having warranty for one year on the unit and five year compressor warranty i.e. only for the compressor of the unit.  In case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy and the warranty of the unit. Further clarified that warranty means only repair not replacement. Manufacturing defect in the unit has been denied.  It has been submitted that as and when complainant approached the OPs, it provided services to the best and lastly no defect was found in the unit but the complainant just to grab money from OPs has filed this false complaint. In the end, deficiency in serviced on their part has been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.1 did not appear despite issuance of registered notice, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.05.2022.

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

5.                 On the other side, affidavit Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 were tendered and closed the evidence.

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

7.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the Air conditioner so purchased him did not work properly since its purchase and installation. But despite approaching the OPs many times, defects could not be rectified. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the AC was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the engineers of OPs, as such, the Ops are liable to refund the cost of the AC alongwith compensation for harassment and other expenses.

8.                 On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that on receiving complaint with regard to defects in the Air conditioner, needful was done and working of AC was set right but the complainant remained on adamant that the product is having some more defects but in fact the same were not there. Thus learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the products was having no defects in it and denied for deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

9.                 Learned counsel for complainant to prove the case has placed on record copy of purchase bill of the Air conditioner in question (Annexure C-2) and the AC did not work properly, has placed on record, complaints made by it to the OP company as Annexures C-4 & Annexure C-5.  From perusal of these complaints/e-mails annexing repair charges bills, it seems that the AC was having some defects which could not be rectified by the OPs despite making complaints & repairs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and assessing the evidence so adduced by both the sides, we are of the view that the Air conditioners became defective within its warranty period but defects could not be rectified by the Ops, meaning thereby that Air conditioner was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the Ops despite repeated repairs. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs No.1 being seller and OP No.2 being manufacturer of the products in question are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as have sold the defective product to the complainant. Since, the complainant has used the AC in question for a considerable period, therefore, it will be appropriate, if 25% amount is deducted as depreciation cost from purchase price of the product. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To refund Rs.29,025/- (Rs.Twenty nine thousand twenty five) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual realization, subject to return of the of the old/defective Air conditioner by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant at the hands of OPs.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

 

Announced.           

Dated: 22.11.2023

(Shashi Kiran Panwar)              (Saroj Bala Bohra)

.                                     Member                              Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani. 

 

 

 

Present:-         Smt. Monika Jain, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Advocate for OP No. 2.

OP No.1 exparte.

 

                    Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                  

Dated:22.11.2023          Member.             Presiding Member,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Commission,

                                                            Bhiwani.