Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he has purchased one IPL Chimney do 90 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. EL-18-19/222 dated 17.7.2018 worth Rs.14,500/-, copy of the bill is placed on record as Ex.C1. The Complainant alleges that at the time of purchase of the said product, the Opposite Parties gave guarantee for two years regarding any manufacturing defect, but since the date of the purchase, said chimney is not working properly and there is some technical defect. In this regard, the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 on so many occasions and lodged complaints three times, however the mechanic of the Opposite Parties visited the spot, but the defect in the chimney could not be rectified because there is manufacturing defect. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 time and again and requested to replace the product in question, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant and lastly refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant. Hence, the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient and the Complainant has been harassed unnecessarily and in this regard, the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To replace the product in question of same make and model or in alternative to refund the price of the chimney in question i.e. Rs.14,500/-.
- And also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment and
- Any other relief which this Hon’ble District Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none has come present on behalf of both the Opposite Parties despite due service, and hence, the Opposite Parties are proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.06.2019 of this District Commission.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence copy of bill Ex.C1, copies of complaints lodged with Opposite Parties regarding the defect in the product in question Ex.C2 and supporting affidavit Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. During the course of arguments, the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that he has purchased one IPL Chimney do 90 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. EL-18-19/222 dated 17.7.2018 worth Rs.14,500/-, copy of the bill is placed on record as Ex.C1. Further contended that at the time of purchase of the said product, the Opposite Parties gave guarantee for two years regarding any manufacturing defect, but since the date of the purchase, said chimney is not working properly and there is some technical defect. In this regard, the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 on so many occasions and lodged complaints three times, however the mechanic of the Opposite Parties visited the spot, but the defect in the chimney could not be rectified because there is manufacturing defect. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 time and again and requested to replace the product in question, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant and lastly refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant. Hence, the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient and the Complainant has been harassed unnecessarily.
6. Undisputedly, the Complainant has purchased one IPL Chimney do 90 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. EL-18-19/222 dated 17.7.2018 worth Rs.14,500/-, copy of the bill is placed on record as Ex.C1. The case of the Complainant is that at the time of purchase of the said product, the Opposite Parties gave guarantee for two years regarding any manufacturing defect, but since the date of the purchase, said chimney is not working properly and there is some technical defect. In this regard, the Complainant wrote complaints through e-mail for 14 times, the copies of the said complaints are placed on record as Ex.C2, but none has bothered nor dared to come present before this District Commission to defend its case for the reasons best known to them. Not only this, during the course of arguments, the Complainant also placed on record the certificate issued by Aulakh Electrical, Moga in which it has specifically mentioned that there is no defect in the electrical fittings, points, switches, bulbs, cooler, fans, AC, Fridge, Geyser etc. and all the equipments are running correctly and there must be some defect in the chimney itself. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as the Opposite Parties, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint.
7. The case of the complainant is that the Chimney in question is having manufacturing defect and to strengthen his version, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C3. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the chimney in question started giving troubles since the date of its purchase i.e.within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
As stated above, the complainant proved all these averments through his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C3 and also proved on record the copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence.
8. So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the chimney of the complainant was suffering from inherent defects, which did not admit repair/ rectification. As argued above by the complainant that he has been harassed badly all the time without any reasonable cause and requested to refund the price of the chimney in question and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
9. In views of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against both the Opposite Parties. Both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,500/- i.e. price of the chimney in question alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its payment. Both the Opposite Parties Opposite are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Commission since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Bhatinda as well as Faridkot. There is only one working day in a week when the quorum of this Commission remains complete.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 16.04.2021.
