CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/193/18

          Date of Institution:-    08.05.2018

          Order Reserved on:- 22.08.2024

                        Date of Decision:-      19.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vipin Kumar Rao

S/o Sh. Subhash Chandra Rao

R/o C/oSantosh Kumar,

J-879, Block No.22, Gole Market,

Kali Bari Marg,

New Delhi - 110001

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Managing Director

Onida Company

Mirc Electronics Ltd.,

Onida House, G1, MIDC,

Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri East, Mumbai – 400093

2. Sham LalKrishanLal

Through its proprietor

1/206/28, SadarBazar,

Delhi Cantt. New Delhi – 110010

3. Departmental Head

Complaint Cell

Onida Company

Mirc Electronics Ltd.,

Onida House, G1, MIDC,

Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri East, Mumbai – 400009

4. Head of the Department

Bajaj Finserv Ltd.

Off. No.852, 8^th Floor,

Aggarwal Metro Heights,

Plot – E5, NetajiSubash Place,

Pitampura, New Delhi – 110034Deleted on 30.04.2019

.…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 30.04.2017 he has purchased Air Conditioner from OP-2 being manufactured by OP-1 for a sum of Rs.31577/- which was financed by OP-4. On 02.05.2017, the AC was installed in the house by OP-2. On 04.05.2017, the AC was not working so a complaint was made to OP-2 and it was assured to send the engineer within 1-2 days to rectify the defect. The engineer visited the house. On 12.05.2017, he had made a call to OP-2 regarding serviceability of AC but no one visited to rectify the defect. On 15.05.2017 and 18.05.2017 complaints were made and attended by Ms. Sunanda and Mr. Rajan but no one visited to rectify the defect. On 22.05.2017 another complaint was made but in vain. On 25.05.2017 and 21.06.2017, the complaints were made upon which a technical person visited his house on 21.06.2017 and told that PCB is not working but it was not changed. It was changed when he made the complaint on 04.07.2017. The AC was not working even after change of PCB. He requested to change the AC but in vain and thereafter he made complaints to the OPs but in vain. On 13.07.2017, reply was received from OP and certain documents were demanded. The documents were supplied but grievance was still pending. The OPs have not rectified the defect in the AC despite repeated complaints. Hence, this complaint.

2. OP-1 to 3were duly served. They did not put their appearance and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 19.07.2018.

3. The name of OP-4was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 30.04.2019.

4. The complainant was directed to lead the ex-parte evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in ex-parte evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the complainant and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1 to 6 though exhibits are not put on the documents.

6. The case was fixed for arguments but the complainant did not turn up to address the arguments. The case was reserved for orders.

7. It is clear from the Annexure-A that on 30.04.2017 complainant has purchased the AC from OP-2 with extended warranty which was installed in the house of complainant on 02.05.2017. The AC was not working upon which complaint was made. The PCB of AC was changed but even then AC was not working. The complainant has made complaint Annexure-B to the OPs and ultimately reply dated 13.07.2017 was received from OP-1 vide which the bill of purchase, warranty cards and other correspondence were demanded which were allegedly supplied as apparent from Annexure-D.

8. The AC was purchased on 30.04.2017. The warranty of the AC is of one year even if no extended warranty is considered. The PCB of AC was changed on the complaint of complainant. The AC was not working. The complainant has made various complaints about the non-working condition of AC and even supplied documents as demanded vide letter Annexure-C. The problem in the AC was not rectified by the OP-1 to 3 for the reasons best known to them. The new product should function without any fault. The AC was not working and the faults/defects in the AC were not removed by OP-1 to 3 which clearly show that there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The OPs should have either replaced the AC or removed the defects in the AC to bring it in working condition.

9. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to 3. The complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP-1 to 3 shall jointly or severally refund the amount of AC received from the complainant as it is of no use to go for the removal of defect in the AC because it was purchase in the year 2017. The OP-1 to 3 shall jointly or severally pay the amount so received from the complainant with interest of @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The complainant is alsoentitled for compensation of Rs.7,000/- for mental harassment, agony and litigation expenses. The OP-1 to 3 jointly or severally are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @6% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 19.11.2024.