Haryana

Ambala

CC/2/2019

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aerovision - Opp.Party(s)

Keshav Sharma

04 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:   02 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   04.01.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :   04.11.2019.

                     

Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Pishori Lal, resident of House No.19, Chanderpuri, Opposite DRM Office, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

 

1. M/S Aerovision, Q-5 121-122-122A, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt, through its Prop.
2. M/s Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, NH-8, Ambience Island, Gurugram, Haryana, 122 002, through its authorized signatory.

 

    ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Smt. Keshav Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OP No.1 already exparte vide order dated 02.07.2019.

Shri Atul Sharma, Authorized Representative for OP No.2.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the AC in question with a new one having latest model.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased one Air Conditioner model no. KC1814YA55 Window Panasonic and one stabilizer 4KVA RYOKU STABILISER from OP No.1 and manufactured by OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide Invoice No.230 dated 27.04.2018 under finance scheme of M/s Bajaj Finance. The OP No.1 instead of installing the AC, purchased by him, had installed an old model AC. The AC installed by OP No.1 was of very bad condition and its plastic strips were found broken, cooling was not proper. There was leakage from the cells of the remote. At the time of selling the AC the OP No.1 did not hand over the user manual (Booklet) to him with malafide intention to cheat the complainant. From the label affixed at the back side of the AC, it is apparent that the label period is 1^st January 2014 to 31^st December 2015 and model/year is CWKC1814YA/2014, which clearly shows that the OPs have committed deficiency in rendering services and has also indulged into unfair trade practice. After one week of installation of the AC, he complained the matter to OP No.1. The OP No.1 told him that due to mistake of their representative, the old model AC has been installed in his house and assured that it will replace the AC with a new one within a short span of time, but it did nothing and suggested to approach the manufacturer, OP No.2. Accordingly, he approached the OP No.2, which sent its representative to check the AC. The said representative after checking the AC, changed the main supply & plastic panel of the AC and told him that the AC supplied to him is of old model and its cooling cannot be improved. He took up the matter with the OPs but they did nothing. Ultimately, he served a legal notice dated 29.11.2019, upon the OPs but of no avail. By installing a defective old model AC, the OPs have not only committed deficiency in services but are also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.                 Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Forum, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2019.

3.                Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared through its Authorized Representative and filed written version stating therein that after receiving the legal notice from the complainant, the OP No.2 as a goodwill gesture offered to replace the unit with upgraded model, but the complainant did not accept the offer. The OP No.2 is still ready to replace the AC in question with upgraded model. There is no deficiency in service on its part, therefore the present complaint filed against it may be dismissed.  

4.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, authorized representative for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Atul Sharma, Authorized Representative, Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.        

5.                  We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and authorized representative of OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file and also written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.

6.                From the Invoice Annexure C-4, it is evident that on 27.04.2018, the complainant purchased  the AC in question from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, for a sum of Rs.30,602/-. The complainant has contended that the OP No.1 instead of installing the new AC at his residence has installed the defective old model AC having manufacturing year 2014, which was found to be defective having cooling problem.  In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the Annexure C-6. The OP No.1, did not appear to controvert this contention of the complainant. Thus, we have no option but to accept the said contention of the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. It is also not out of place to mention here that the OP No.2 is still ready to replace the AC in question with a new one having upgraded model. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration we do not hesitate to conclude that the OPs are not only liable to replace the AC in question with a new one with fresh warranty but are also liable to compensate the complainant adequately for the metal agony and physical harassment and caused to him alongwith litigation expenses.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the AC in question with a new one with fresh warranty. We also direct the OPs to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid direction jointly and severally, within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :04.11.2019.

 

               (Vinod Kumar Sharma)                     (Neena Sandhu)                                  Member                                           President