Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that Opposite Party No.2 is carrying on its business under the name and style of M/s.Chinu Air Conditioners, Jawahar Nagar, Moga and Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer and supplier of Mitsubishi A.Cs and other products while Opposite Party No.2 is the dealer of said company. The complainant alleges that he purchased two Air Conditioners (i) Mitsubishi H Duty 2.2Ton AC SRK25 and (ii) Mitsubishi H Duty 1.1Ton AC SRK13 bearing Serial No.987605492BE and Serial No.96268289BE from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice No.GST/20-21/91 dated 26.03.2021 worth Rs.93,000/-. At the time of purchase of said Air Conditioners, Opposite Party No.2 gave guarantee against any defect of the period of one year and warranty for five years against any manufacturing or any other defect. Thereafter, the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2 installed these Air Conditioners in the institute of the complainant and charged Rs.7,400/- from the complainant. Further alleges that since the date of purchase of said Air Conditioners, one AC of 2.2 ton is not working properly and is not providing any cooling. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and lodged a complaint and they sent their mechanic to remove the defect, but could not succeed and hence there is a manufacturing defect in the AC. Thereafter, the complainant visited the head office of Opposite Party No.1 and astonished to know that said ACs are not manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 company and hence Opposite Party No.2 played fraud with the complainant by selling the duplicate brand of ACs. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 number of times and requested to replace the said ACs, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party in not replacing the Air Conditioners or refunding its price without any reason is an act of deficiency in service and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To replace the Air Conditioners (i) Mitsubishi H Duty 2.2Ton AC SRK25 and (ii) Mitsubishi H Duty 1.1Ton AC SRK13 bearing Serial No.987605492BE and Serial No.96268289BE purchased from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice No.GST/20-21/91 dated 26.03.2021 or to refund the price of Rs.93,000/- and installation charges amounting to Rs.7,400/-.
- And also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment and
- Any other relief which this Hon’ble District Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, hence Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.09.2021 of this District Commission.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copy of bill Ex.C1, copies of warranty cards Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, copy of bill of installation charges Rs.7400/- Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the Complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the Complainant purchased two Air Conditioners (i) Mitsubishi H Duty 2.2Ton AC SRK25 and (ii) Mitsubishi H Duty 1.1Ton AC SRK13 bearing Serial No.987605492BE and Serial No.96268289BE from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice No.GST/20-21/91 dated 26.03.2021 worth Rs.93,000/-, copy of the bills is placed on record as Ex.C2. The case of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of said Air Conditioners, Opposite Party No.2 gave guarantee against any defect of the period of one year and warranty for five years against any manufacturing or any other defect, copy of warranty and guarantee cards are placed on record as Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. Thereafter, the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2 installed these Air Conditioners in the institute of the complainant and charged Rs.7,400/- from the complainant, copy of installation charges is also placed as Ex.C4. Further contended that that since the date of purchase of said Air Conditioners, one AC of 2.2 ton is not working properly and is not providing any cooling. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and lodged a complaint and they sent their mechanic to remove the defect, but could not succeed and hence there is a manufacturing defect in the AC. Thereafter, the complainant visited the head office of Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant astonished to know that said ACs are not manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 company and hence Opposite Party No.2 played fraud with the complainant by selling the duplicate brand of ACs. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 number of times and requested to replace the said ACs, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties have harassed the Complainant unnecessarily. To corroborate his aforesaid assertion, the Complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 i.e. copies of bills and warranty cards. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as the Opposite Parties did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint. The complainant further contended that Party No.2 played fraud with the complainant by selling the duplicate brand of Air Conditioners as these Air Conditioners are not manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 company.
6. So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Party No2. has adopted unfair trade practice by selling duplicate brand ACs on the pretext of Mitsubishi Company brand and charged Rs.93,000/- from the complainant by selling duplicate Air Conditioners which are not working properly and not giving cooling. On this count, the Complainant prayed for refund of the price of the ACs in question as well as to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides refund of Rs.7400/- on account of installation charges, but the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and refund of Rs.7400/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.93,000/- (Rupees ninety three thousands only) (on return of Air Conditioners in question) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 07.09.2021 till its actual realization. Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.1-Company stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 28.12.2021.
