Rakesh Kumar complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that his complaint may please be allowed and opposite parties may please be directed to replace the new electric appliances i.e. one cooler (Mark Arise) and UPS Inverter (Mark Arise) in place of defective one or to return the sale price of the same. Complainant has further prayed that opposite parties may also be burdened with costs of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental, monetary and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased two coolers and one UPS inverter on 25.09.2015 from the party No.1 vide retail invoice No.219 and one item of cooler is of mark Arise Aircooler 65, was amounting to Rs.9200/- and second item Arise UPS inverter 900wt. was amounting to Rs.4200/-. It was pleaded that both coolers were having 1 year warranty whereas UPS inverter was having 2 years warranty. It was further pleaded that one cooler purchased by the complainant had been working smoothly for 1 month but thereafter, it started giving different types of voices due to which complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 told the complainant to register one-line complaint with the complaint centre of opposite party No.2 as opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the cooler Mark Arise but inspite of lodging the several on-line complaints, nobody from the side of the opposite party has come to remove the defect of the cooler. It was also pleaded that after 6 months the second item i.e. Arise UPS inverter purchased from opposite party No.1 started creating disturbance and tripping and was not charging the battery properly and complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 and made request to remove the defect or change the inverter but opposite party No.1 again told the complainant to register a on-line complaint to the complaint centre of opposite party No.2 and said that opposite party No.1 is only a dealer of the said items i.e. Arise coolers and inverter and opposite party No.2 gave service to the consumer. It was next pleaded that when nobody come from the side of the opposite parties, complainant took both the defective items i.e. one Air cooer and UPS inverter and handover the same to the opposite party No.1 on 10 May, 2016 and told the opposite party No.1 that either to replace both the defective items or to return the sale price but the opposite parties had not replaced the above said items nor return the sale price which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that complainant had been harassed mentally and physically from the hands of the opposite parties and the cause of action lastly arose on 10 May, 2016 when opposite parties flatly refused to entertain the request of the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Sh.Narinder Kumar, prop. of opposite party no.1 had appeared and filed his written reply stating therein that he had sold the items/products of the Company and if any defect found in the items/products the same was repaired by the Company as Company has opened own service centre and he has no role in it and prayed that action may kindly be taken against the Company. After it, opposite party No.1 had failed to produce his evidence and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.7.2017. Opposite party No.2 did not appear and was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.03.2017.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
5. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the complainant) and arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. We find that the complainant had purchased two coolers and one UPS inverter on 25.09.2015 from the party No.1 vide retail invoice No.219 and one item of cooler is of mark Arise Aircooler 65, was amounting to Rs.9200/- and second item Arise UPS inverter 900wt. was amounting to Rs.4200/-. But after some time both the items purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 gave problem in their working. Complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with the defects of both the above mentioned items and on the advice of opposite party No.1 complainant lodged on-line complaints with the opposite party No.2 but no action had been by them. In order to prove his case complainant had produced on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice Ex.C2 and warranty card Ex.C3 (In two pages). On the other hand prop. of opposite party No.1 had appeared and filed his formal written reply but he had failed to produce his evidence inspite of availing several opportunities and was proceeded against exparte. Opposite party No.2 also did not appear and was proceeded against exparte. Opposite parties intentionally did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and as such evidence produced by the complainant remains unrebutted.
9. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to replace both the defective items i.e. one Arise Aircooler 65 and Arise UPS Inverter (in question) purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of these orders. If opposite parties cannot replace the above said defective items then they shall be jointly and severally liable to refund the full sale price of the defective items i.e. one Arise Aircooler 65 and Arise UPS Inverter (in question) with interest @ 9% PA from the date of purchase till actual payment alongwith cost awarded.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
DEC. 04, 2017. Member
*YP*
