Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/314

Sukhchain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kumar Radios - Opp.Party(s)

Maninder Khara Adv.

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:314 dated 04.07.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 24.02.2023.

 

Sukhchain Singh son of Jagir Singh, resident of Tugal Patti, Near Atta Chaki, VPO Chuharchak, Tehsil and District Moga.                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Kumar Radios, Main Road Market, Opp. Water Tank, Rani Jhansi Chowk, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Authorized person.
2. Havells India Limited QRG Towers, 2D, Sector-126, Expressway Noida-201304 (Uttar Pardesh). Ph. No. +91-120-3331000:- through its Managing Director/Authorized person.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Maninder Khara, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         None for OP1. (Evidence of OP1 already closed                     by order vide order dated 09.11.2022)

For OP2                         :         Sh. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 for buying an Air Cooler, who is the authorized sale outlet of opposite party No.2, the manufacturer of electrical and electronic appliances. On the assurance of salesman of opposite party No.1 the complainant purchased one Havells Desert Cooler, Freado (70 L) make air cooler vide invoice No.781 dated 05.06.2018 for consideration of Rs.16,500/- with warranty of one year. The complainant submitted that after a few days of the purchase, the said air cooler started giving trouble regarding a which complaint was made to opposite party No.1 on 26.06.2018. The mechanics of opposite party No.1 told the complainant that there was problem in the electric motor of the cooler and the same was repaired by them on 03.07.2018 with assurance that now the air cooler is free from all defects but after using the same for about one week, it again stopped working regarding which compliant was made to opposite party No.1 on 16.07.2018. Opposite party No.1 again repaired the air cooler. The complainant used the same for a few days and thereafter, due to change of season the air cooler was not used. The complainant further submitted that he again starting using the air cooler from the last week of April 2019 but on 02.05.2019 the air cooler again started giving trouble and was not running properly. The complainant informed opposite party No.1 and made a complaint to opposite party No.2 vide complaint No.0306191620360. The motor of air cooler was again repaired by the mechanic of opposite party No.2 but the air cooler stopped working after 2 days. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 with request to replace the air cooler with a brand new one of the same make and price or to refund the price of the air cooler. Opposite party No.1 promised the complainant to replace the same after getting replacement from opposite party No.2 or they will refund the price of the air cooler.  Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 after one week but opposite party No.1 neither replaced the defective air cooler nor returned the amount spent by the complainant despite his repeated requests and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. In the last week of June 2019 the opposite parties flatly refused to replace the air cooler or to refund the price of the same to the complainant. The opposite parties have sold defective air cooler to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part due to which the complainant has suffered mental harassment and agony. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to opposite parties to pay Rs.16,500/- being price of the air cooler along with interest @12% per annum along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement. In preliminary objections, opposite party No.1 assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability, lack of cause of action and the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 alleged that defect in the air cooler arose due to high voltage and which was got repaired on 03.07.2018. This fact of high voltage was brought into knowledge of the complainant and he was requested to keep the stabilizer attached too on air cooler so that in case of high voltage, voltage could be controlled by the stabilizer. The complainant assured to keep stabilizer but concealed this fact from this Court. Due to high voltage it was repaired again on second time as due to high voltage there arose complications as the circuit of the air cooler got damaged and same was got  repaired second time with request to complainant to keep stabilizer on it but without any effect. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the same defect again arose in the air cooler due to voltage fluctuation in the house of the complainant and the dealer has nothing to do in the case of high voltage or fluctuation but it was got repaired by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the air cooler had not stopped working after two days as alleged by the complainant nor there was any manufacturing defect rather the defect arose due to voltage fluctuation in the house of the complainant for which the electric equipment got damaged and that was not the default of any party. The defect was on account of negligence on the part of the complainant by not keeping the stabilizer on the air cooler as there was problem of the voltage fluctuation in the house of the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been denied being incorrect and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                 Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed material acts; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 alleged that it never denied the service to the customer and is always ready and willing to check and repair the product subject to warranty terms and conditions. Opposite party further alleged that no expert report has been attached by the complainant regarding the alleged manufacturing defect and it has already resolved the issue of the complainant by replacing the motor, main PCB and Display PCB to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, it had to cancel the last call of the complainant as the complainant did not allow the official of opposite party No.2 to check the cooler on 29.06.2019. However, as a goodwill gesture and for customer satisfaction, opposite party No.2 was ready to repair the cooler on free of costs basis even through the product had become out of warranty.

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, opposite party No.2 alleged that the calls of the complainant were received and both calls were attended by the technician of opposite party No.2 and issue was resolved on 22.06.2019 by replacing the motor, main PCB and display PCB. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been denied being incorrect and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 05.06.2018, Ex. C2 is the copy of photograph of the product and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, opposite party no.2 failed to conclude its evidence despite grant of numerous opportunities and even none turned up for OP1 for the purpose and as such, evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by order vide order dated 09.11.2022. However, the counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA/II of Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Senior General Manager of opposite party No.2 along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of job sheet dated 01.07.2019, Ex. R2 is the copy of job sheet dated 22.06.2019 and closed the evidence.

6.                None has been putting in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.1 since 20.04.2022. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2 and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the complainant.         

7.                Perusal of invoice dated 05.06.2018 Ex. C1 reveals that the complainant purchased a cooler from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2 after paying a sum of Rs.16,500/-. The said cooler reported problem in electric motor. Opposite party No.1 had repaired the said part of the cooler at the request of the complainant. It is alleged that later on the same problem arose alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties of not selling quality product to the complainant, the complainant filed this complaint seeking replacement of the said cooler with fresh warranty or refund of the amount paid by him with interest.

8.                The opposite parties categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. The opposite parties alleged that they have rectified the defect in the cooler by replacing the motor, main PCB and Display PCB to the satisfaction of the complainant. When the cooler became dis-functional for second time, the mechanic of the opposite parties told the complainant that the defect occurred due to voltage fluctuation and high voltage and asked him to attach stabilizer with the cooler to control the voltage but the complainant did not do the needful.  Moreover, opposite party No.2 placed on record copies of job sheet Ex. R1 dated 01.07.2019 and Ex. R2 dated 22.06.2019. As per job sheet Ex. R2 it can be perused that the motor of the cooler was replaced during warranty period. As per job sheet dated 01.07.2019 Ex. R1 it can be revealed that the complaint was attended but the complainant/customer was not ready for repair and sought replacement only. In the written statement, the opposite parties stated that as a goodwill gesture they are ready to repair the cooler free of costs. It seems that it is the complainant who did not follow the instructions of the mechanic/expert by attaching a stabilizer with the cooler to avoid voltage fluctuation problem and remained adamant for replacement of the product. Even the complainant has not examined any expert to prove manufacturing defect in the said cooler. The opposite parties make their best endeavors to redress the grievance of the complainant.  In the given facts and circumstances, it is held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Sukhchain Singh VS Kumar Radios                                        CC/19/314

Present:       Sh. Maninder Khara, Advocate for complainant.

                   None for OP1. (Evidence of OP1 already closed by order dated                          09.11.2022)

                   Sh. Sanjeev Vashisht, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   None turned up for opposite party No.1 today also. None has been appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 since 20.04.2022.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.