Haryana

Ambala

CC/319/2018

Atish Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ambay Hardware Store - Opp.Party(s)

U.S. Chauhan

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 319 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   01.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   03.01.2020.

 

Atish Aggarwal son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of House No.999, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                             Versus

 

1. M/s Ambay Hardware Store, 36-C, Bara Thakurdwara, Rambag Road, Ambala City through its Proprietor.
2. M/s Kaff Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd., SS Plaza 4^th Floor, Opposite Hilton Garden Inn, Sector-47, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

 

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Uday Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the                                  complainant.

Shri Narinder Batra, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Shri Vikas Gulati, Authorized Representative of OP No.2.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

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 pay Rs.13,500/- as loss of chimney.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
382.  

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

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased an Electric Chimney, Model No.OPEC MX70 (KAFF) amounting Rs.13,500/-from OP No.1 i.e M/s Ambay Hardware Store, Ambala City vide Bill No.12191 dated 07.09.2016. At the time of purchase, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the product is having warranty of five years for any kind of loss. The chimney in question was installed in the kitchen of complainant by the technical persons of OP No.2 and they have also assured the complainant that they have properly fixed the chimney as per standards and norms and it will work properly in future. After using the same for two months, one day suddenly the chimney caught fire due to which huge loss was caused to the complainant. Immediately after the fire in the chimney, OP No.1 & 2 were duly informed qua the fire as well as loss of the complainant, but of no avail. Complainant sent an E-mail to the OP No.2 on their customer care E-mail ID on 20.12.2017, but OP No.2 failed to respond the said E-mail. Complainant again send a reminder to the OP No.2 on dated 25.12.2017, alongwith photographs of the burnt chimney. OP No.2 replied the Email that they were unable to replace the burnt chimney with new one on FOC basis as per policy, but if he want to purchase new chimney they can offer him fifty percent discount on MRP and same on spare. Complainant being not satisfied with the quality and service of product, did not accepted the offer so made by the OPs. Complainant refused the offer vide E-mail dated 29.05.2018, but neither the OPs have refunded the amount of the product nor compensated the complainant in any manner. By providing a bad quality and product and by not compensating the complainant, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, not coming to the Forum with clean hands, suppressing of true and material facts, beyond limitation. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 has not given the warranty of the chimney in question for 5 years, OP No.2 which is manufacturing unit, it only gives warranty of 5 years of Motor and 1 year for chimney. The complainant had never informed to the OP No.1 about the alleged incident. There is no deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of OP No.1 as he had only sold the product of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complainant filed against it.

                   Upon notice, initially an Authorized Rep. appeared on behalf of OP No.2, and filed reply stating therein that after the incident complainant informed the OP No.2 and it immediately send its service technician to inspect. As per the inspection main lead was found OK and filter was burnt and due to high flame Bloor was imbalanced and due to which the oil present in the chimney caught fire and same was due to negligence of the complainant. It also offered the complainant for 50% discount on MRP and 50% on spare. No company across PAN India does not take guarantee/warranty of burnt chimney which generally catchers fire due to high flame from the stove.

3.                The Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Neeraj Gambhir, Proprietor of M/s Ambhay Hardware Store, 36-C, Bara Thakurdwara, Rambagh Road, Ambala City as Annexure OP1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. On the other hand the Authorized Representative Shri Vikas Gulati working as Technician in M/s Kaff Appliances India Pvt. LTd. having its office at SS Plaza, 4^th Floor, Opposite Hilton Garden Inn, Sector-47, Gurugram (HR) appearing on behalf of OP No.2 has tendered his affidavit as Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

4.                We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 and Authorized Representative of OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file.      

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant  reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint. 

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and Authorized Representative of OP No.2 reiterated the version as mentioned in the written versions and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant had argued that he purchased an electric chimney from OP No.1 amounting Rs.13,500/- vide bill No.12191 dated 07.09.2016. At the time of purchase, OP No.1 has assured the complainant that the product is having warranty of five years for any kind of loss. The chimney in question was installed by the technician of OP No.2. After using the chimney for two months, one day suddenly the chimney caught fire due to which huge loss was caused to the complainant’s kitchen. Despite several requests and E-mail to OP No.2 neither the chimney in question was replaced nor compensation was given to the complainant. By not providing the good quality product and by not paying the compensation to the complainant OPs are deficient in providing the service.

8.                On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 argued that  it has not given the warranty of the chimney in question for five years. It is the OP No.2, who is the manufacturing unit, and it only gives warranty of 5 years for Motor and 01 year for chimney. Complainant had never informed to it about the alleged fire incident in the chimney. The present complaint is also filed beyond the period of limitation. OP No.1 being the dealer had only sold the product of the OP No.2 and as such it is not deficient in providing the service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint filed against it.

9.                On the other hand Authorized Representative of OP No.2 argued that the chimney in question was purchased by the complainant on 07.09.2016 vide bill No.12191 and the case was filed after more than 2 years. After the information of the alleged fire incident in the chimney by the complainant, OP No.2 sent its technician who inspected the said chimney and on inspection it was found that the chimney caught fire due to high flame due to which oil present in the chimney caught fire and the said incident occurred due to negligence of the complainant. However, OP No.2 offered the complainant 50% discount on MRP of new chimney and 50% on its spare. Complainant informed the OP No.2 firstly on dated 20.12.2017 vide E-mail about the loss of chimney due to catching of fire by the chimney in the last year, which shows that if the chimney had received the fire after two months of its purchase then the complainant would have complained about the same on the same day or within the same month, but he informed the OP No.2 after a period of one year. Furthermore there is a warranty of chimney for the period of one year and warranty for motor five years. Complainant has lodged the complainant with the OP No.2 after the expiry of warranty period. As such they are not deficient in providing the service and prayed for dismissal of the present complainant filed against it.               

10.              Admittedly, the complainant purchased the electric chimney in question from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.13,500/- vide bill No.12191 dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure C-1). The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that after using the same for two months the chimney in question caught fire and due to which huge loss was borne out by the complainant. He further argued that vide E-mail dated 20.12.2017 he informed the OP No.2 about the alleged incident of fire. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that if the chimney in question was got damaged after two months from the date of purchase, then the complainant had to submit his complaint immediately after the incident, but the complainant has lodged his complainant with OPs after a lapse of one year from the occurrence and the complaint was also lodged after the expiry of warranty period. From the perusal of Annexure C-2 E-mail dated 20.12.2017, placed on record by the complainant, it is clear that complainant has lodged the complaint with the OP No.2 on 20.12.2017, through E-mail which is after the period of one year from the date of purchase of the chimney in question and the alleged incident. Furthermore, despite the fact that complainant has lodged the complaint after a delay of one year, OP No.2 offered him 50% discount of purchase of new chimney and 50% discount on spare parts. Complainant has not proved on record the fact that why he had lodged the complaint after a delay of one year instead of lodging the complaint immediately. Since the complaint was lodged with the OP No.2 after a delay of one year i.e. after the expiry of warranty period and from the period of alleged incident, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get the cost of chimney or any compensation, but he can avail the benefit of the offer given by the OP No.2 vide E-mail dated 26.12.2017, Annexure C-3 i.e. 50% discount on purchase of chimney and 50% discount on spare parts. In this view of matter, the OPs cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant. The complaint filed by the complainant, is liable to be dismissed,  

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OPs, with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to get the chimney in question replaced with a new one from the OP No.2 at 50% discount as well as 50% on spare parts as offered by the OP No.2 vide  E-mail dated 26.12.2017 Annexure C-3. 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 :03.01.2020.

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

          Member                                   Member                          President.