Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/415/2020

Sehra Print Pack, a Sole Proprietorship Firm - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Electronic Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Pandey

17 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/415/2020
Date of Institution	:	29.9.2020
Date of Decision	:	17.01.2023

 

Sehra Print Pack a sole proprietorship firm having its principle place of Business at Plot No.6, first floor, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh through its authorized representative Sh. Kuldeep Kumar son of Sh. Bishan Dass resident of H. No.2003/15, Sector 32/C, Chandigarh.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Electronics Enterprises, SCO 2465-66, Sector 22/C, Chandigarh, through its proprietor/authorized incharge.
2. M/s Havells India Limited having its registered office at 904, Surya Kiran Building, K.G.  Marg, New Delhi 11000, through its Managing Director/Director.
3. M/s AAR AAR Enterprises Shop No. 29&33, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor/authorized incharge.

 .  … Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                        

ARGUED BY		Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, proprietor of M/s Sehra Print Pack complainant in person.
		Opposite Party No.1 exparte.
		Sh. Manjeet Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Munish puri, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.
		Opposite Party No.3 exparte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated, Sh. Kuldeep Kumar authorized representative of the complainant purchased a Spilt Air Conditioner of 1 ton of make LLOYD vide invoice  Annexure C-1 for a sum of Rs.28,200/- from  Opposite Party No.1 to gift the same his brother Sunil Kumar who is the sole proprietor of the complainant firm. It is alleged that the AC in question started malfunctioning within a week from the date of its purchase. The complainant approached the OPs and the service engineer of the OPs visited the residence of the complainant and checked the AC. They told the complainant of some setting problem in the AC and assured to visit again after three days. After a week the service engineer of the OPs again visited the complainant residence without prior intimation and opened the AC and did some welding work but inspite of two visits the OPs engineer could not set right the problem of the AC in question and neither gave any consumer feedback form nor any service report. After a week the AC again started giving problem of less cooling, the same was again reported to the OPs  but the Opposite Parties did not bother to attend and to make the AC functional. Ultimately the complainant vide email Annexure C-4 requested the Opposite Parties to replace the defective AC but the OPs vide email Annexure C-6 intimated that due to mishandling of the unit AC gas found leaked through flair nuts and same needs to be recharged/refilled and clearly refused to replace the defective AC. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. OPs No.1 and 3 did not turn up despite service of notices, hence Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 were proceeded exparte vide orders dated  11.5.2022 and 7.1.2021 respectively
3. The Opposite Parties NO.2  in its reply stated that the technician of the answering Opposite Party visited the complainant and thoroughly examined the produced and had found gas leakage from flair nut of the AC due to tampering/mishandling  of the AC unit. Thus though the warranty had become void but the answering Opposite Party had as a goodwill gesture offered to refill the gas free of cost and had visited the residence of Mr. Kuldeep for the same but he refused and demanded replacement of the whole product. It is averred that vide satisfaction letter dated 16.4.2021, Opposite Party company has already replaced the complete AC as a goodwill gesture and complainant’s satisfaction but the complainant did not withdraw the case as he was demanding his lawyer fees and compensation amount and the same remarks have been mentioned by the complainant on satisfaction letter. It is averred that the when the product have already been replaced no cause of action arise anymore and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The grouse of the complainant is that the AC in question started giving  problem within the warranty period, which could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties and as such he requested  for replacement of the AC in question but the Opposite Party did not agree. Whereas the stand of the Opposite Party No.2 is that there was gas leakage from flair nut of the AC due to tampering/mishandling of the AC unit and though the warranty had become void but the answering Opposite Party had as a goodwill gesture offered to refill the gas free of cost but he same was rejected by the complainant.  
8. A perusal of the record shows that vide Satisfaction Letter dated 16.4.2021 the complainant has settled the matter with the Opposite Parties  thorough its representative Kuldeep Kumar and as per settlement the AC in question was replaced with new  one and the representative of the complainant has given undertaking that in view of settlement he has no claim against the company and agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of harassment amount. Once the parties have settled the matter and the AC in question was replaced the grievance of the complainant stands resolved to this extent which was the main grouse of the complainant in the complaint.  
9.  Now the sole point to be determined is as to whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation cost.  A perusal of the record clearly shows that the AC in question was replaced by the Opposite Parties after filing of the instant complaint. Meaning thereby they forced the complainant to indulge in the instant litigation which caused him mental agony and harassment. Had the Opposite Parties redressed the grievance of the complainant before filing of the instant case he would not have come before this Commission for redressal of his grievance. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant is entitled for compensation and harassment. Since the AC in question has already been replaced by the OPs with a new one as a good will gesture, therefore it will meet the end of justice if the complainant is paid a composite amount of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and costs of ligation.   
10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. to pay a composite amount of Rs.10,000/-

to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment to him and litigation cost;

 

11.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			Sd/-
			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member