Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 25.
Instituted on : 11.01.2019.
Decided on : 02.07.2019.
Gaurav Malik age 30 years s/o Sh. Jagbir Singh R/o H.No.81-A/10, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Anand Electronics, 14 Palika Bazar, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- M/s Techno Vision, SCF-42, HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Hitachi High Technologies, 209, 2nd Floor, Time Power, M. G. Road, Gurugram, Haryana through its Director/Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sunil Kumar Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased one Hitachi Air Conditioner for a sum of Rs.40500/- from the respondent no.1 vide invoice no.F-130 dated 14.06.2018. That the alleged A.C. has stopped working just after three months of its installation and complainant informed the customer care and its PCB was found burnt and same was got repaired on 26.09.2018, but again the A.C. stopped working on 08.10.2018 Complainant informed the same to the company many times vide complaint no.18100804709 but till today the A.C. of the complainant has not been repaired. That complainant had made so many phone calls and emails and requested the opposite partiers to repair the fault but to no effect. That the A.C. in question is not working properly since the date of its purchase and the same has some manufacturing defect. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective AC is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to supply a new A.C. alogwith guarantee or to return the price of A.C. alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 failed to appeared before the Forum despite due service and opposite party no.3 also did not appear despite notice served through registered post. As such opposite parties no.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.02.2019 of this Forum.
3. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1 dated 14.06.2018, complainant had purchased the A.C. in question for Rs.40500/- from the opposite party No.1. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the alleged A.C. and he made so many calls and emails to the opposite parties for rectifying the fault but the A.C. in question was not repaired by the OPs. To prove his contention, complainant has placed on record copy of detail of complaints made w.e.f. June 2018 to October 2018 placed on record as Ex.C2. So many replies were given by the company as mentioned in document Ex.C3, whereby it is submitted that they will attend the complaint shortly. As per job sheet Ex.C4., the complainant has submitted that: “In just 3 months this piece created many problems, 2 times its PCB was burnt, at the time of installation, it was not vacuumed and wiring was not proper, so either change this piece or please refund the price”. So many emails were also sent by the complainant to the company as mentioned in document Ex.C5 but till date, A.C. in question is not repaired by the opposite parties. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not repairing the A.C. stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.3 being the manufacturer is liable to replace the A.C. in question.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to replace the A.C in question with a new one of same model or any other model upto Rs.40500/- and to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the A.C. in question to the opposite parties at the time of replacement.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.07.2019.
……....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..............................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
