Delhi

North East

CC/243/2014

Vijender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aditi Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 243/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Vijendra Singh S/o Shri Chhote Singh R/o:-  House No. C-32, Street No. 1 Ganga Vihar, Sabhapur Shahdara, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Aditi Electronics D-8, Adarsh Market Yamuna Vihar Road, North Ghonda Delhi-110053   M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. First Floor, ABW Tower Sector-25, IFFCO Chowk, Gurgaon Haryana	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

18.06.2014 05.07.2022 13.07.2022

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner Model SAC CUBE CS/CU ZC-20, Indoor-2176 from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 16.05.2013 vide invoice no. R-87 for a sum of Rs. 21,500/-. Opposite Party No. 1 had also issued a certificate of warranty for the said Air Conditioner. It is alleged that the compressor of the said AC was not working properly due to which the Air Conditioner was not performing properly. Complainant stated that he made complaints vide complaint no. 084676 on 17.05.2013 and vide complaint no. 104270 on 21.05.2013. The mechanic of the Opposite Parties came to his premises and restored the problem but the problem continued. Again Complainant made complaints to Opposite Parties vide complaint no. 14041-37627 on 25.04.2014, complaint no. 065232 on 01.05.2014, complaint no. 1405-041117 on 09.05.2014 and complaint no. 1405-061592 on 12.05.2014. Complainant alleged that Opposite Parties failed to rectify the problem of the Air Conditioner.
2. Complainant has prayed for issuing direction to Opposite Parties to change the faulty Air Conditioner with a new one of same model or to pay the amount which was paid by Complainant for the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs. 21,500/-. He has also claimed for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental torture, pain and agony. He has also claimed for Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Complainant has attached copy of invoice dated 16.05.2013 and copy of Certificate of Warranty.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

4. Notice was sent to Opposite Party No. 1 but none has turned up on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 despite service. Hence, Opposite Party No. 1  was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.10.2014.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

5. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 2 that the present complaint is not maintainable in law or on the true facts and circumstances of the matter, and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. It is submitted that Complainant had lodged the complaints and all the complaints have been attended by the Opposite Party No. 2. On 25.04.2014 the gas was refilled, on 01.05.2014 the capacitor was replaced, on 08.05.2014 the said Air Conditioner was once again serviced at the request of Complainant and on 12.05.2014 the Complainant once again made a complaint and the same was attended by the mechanic of Opposite Party No. 2 and after inspection the said Air Conditioner was found to be working in proper condition. It is alleged that Complainant is habitual of making the complaints despite Air Conditioner working properly. It is stated that due to increase in the outside temperature and voltage fluctuation the cooling varies and Complainant was explained this fact time and again. It is denied that the compressor of the said Air Conditioner was not working properly. It is also denied that the Complainant had made any complaints on 17.05.2013 and 21.05.2013. It is submitted that the first complaint was received from the Complainant in April 2014. It is denied that there is deficiency in service.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party No. 2

7.  Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party No. 2 and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

8. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e copy of invoice dated 16.05.2013 and copy of Certificate of Warranty.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

9. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of  Shri Sushil Kumar, Authorized Representative M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, M.G. Road, Sector-25, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Arguments & Conclusions

10. We have already heard the Complainant and have perused the file. Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded ex-parte and none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 despite opportunity given for addressing arguments.
11. The case of the Complainant is that on 16.05.2013 he purchased one Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said Air Conditioner. As per the case of the Complainant the said Air Conditioner was not working properly as there was some defect in the compressor of the Air Conditioner. The Complainant made complaints to Opposite Party No. 2 for rectification of the fault but the fault was not rectified by the mechanics of Opposite Party No. 2.
12. The case of Opposite Party No. 2 is that there was no defect in the compressor of the Air Conditioner of the Complainant. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 2 that the complaints of Complainant were attended by its mechanic and the defect was rectified.
13. Now the question is that whether there was any manufacturing defect in the compressor of the Air Conditioner. To support his contention the Complainant has filed his affidavit wherein he has supported his assertions made in the complaint. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that there was no such defect in the compressor of the Air Conditioner and the complaints of the Complainant were attended by its mechanics. To support its contention the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Sushil Kumar, Authorized Representative. It is important to note that Shri Sushil Kumar has not filed any document/official record to show that when the mechanics of Opposite Party No. 2 visited the premises of the Complainant for attending the complaints and it was found that there was no defect in the compressor of the Air Conditioner. It is also important to note that the said Shri Sushil Kumar has not dealt with the complaints of the Complainant so he has no personal knowledge about the functioning of the Air Conditioner. No documents/evidence has been filed on record by the Opposite Party No. 2 to show that Air Conditioner was working properly. Therefore, the defence raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 cannot be accepted.
14. In view of, the above discussion it is ordered that the Opposite Party No. 2 will replace the Air Conditioner of the Complainant with some other new Air Conditioner of the same type and price subject to the condition that the Complainant shall hand over the Air Conditioner in question to the Opposite Party No. 2. In case the Air Conditioner of the same kind and price is not available with the Opposite Party No. 2 then the Opposite Party No. 2 shall refund the price of the Air Conditioner to the Complainant subject to the condition that the Complainant shall hand over the Air Conditioner in question to the Opposite Party No. 2.  In the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 15,000/- are ordered to be paid by the Opposite Party No. 2 to the Complainant on account of harassment and legal expenses. The said amount shall be payable along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order tills its recovery.
15. Order announced on 13.07.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President