Punjab

Sangrur

CC/24/2018

Sorav Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Goyal Radios - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sonu Marken

24 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    24

                                                Instituted on:      18.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       24.07.2018

 

 

 

Sorav Singla S/o Davinder Kumar, R/O House No.336, Magzine Street, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Goyal Radios, Chotta Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.             Hitachi India, 9^th Floor, Abhijeet, Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 380006 through its Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Sonu Markan, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri J.S.Ladda, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Sorav Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 28.4.2017, the complainant approached the OP number 1 and purchased one air conditioner manufactured by Op number 2 for Rs.32,500/- vide bill dated 28.4.2017 which was having one year warranty against any of the defects therein.   Further case of the complainant is that after some times of its purchase, the remote control of the air conditioner stopped working and as such the complainant complained about the same on 26.7.2017 to OP number 2 and after receiving the complaint, the engineer of the OP number 2 visited the complainant to resolve the problem on 29.7.2017, who after examination told that the remote is OK, but the sensor part of the air conditioner was not working properly and advised the complainant to wait for the same for 1-2 working days, but no one visited the complainant despite repeated reminders sent vide email dated 2.8.2017, 3.8.2017, 5.8.2017 and lastly the OPs temporarily removed the problem on 15.8.2017 and the same problem again arose on 16.8.2017 and as such the complainant again lodged the complaint with the OPs on 22.8.2017 by sending an email and thereafter nobody visited the complainant to rectify the problem in the air conditioner.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the air conditioner with a new one or in the alternative to refund the purchase price of the air conditioner in question along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               No reply of the complaint has been filed by the OP number 1 despite the fact sufficient period of 45 days was granted and as such the right to file the written reply by OP number 1 was closed by order of the Forum.

 

3.               In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that present complaint is an abuse of process of law, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is vague, baseless and has been filed with malafide intention.  However, on merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question in packed condition for Rs.32,500/-. That as per the warranty policy, if there is any issue/problem with the said product, then the company shall repair the same free of cost.  It is stated that OP number 2 visited the place of the complainant and replaced the display PCB, hence it is denied that the OP number 2 did nothing to get the air conditioner in working order.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-2 affidavit along with Ex.OP2/A to Ex.OP2/C and closed evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-5 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the air conditioner make Hitachi for Rs.32,500/- by the complainant vide number 32670 dated 28.4.2017.  Annexure-A is the copy of warranty card, which clearly shows that the air conditioner in question has a comprehensive warranty of 12 months.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question on 28.4.2017, but the fact remains that the air conditioner in question developed defects of cooling as well as the sensor part of the air conditioner within the warranty period, but the Ops failed to set right the cooling as well as sensor part of the air conditioner.  We may mention that the OP number 1 did not file any written reply.  It is on the record that the air conditioner in question developed defects in the very short span of its purchase and even during the warranty period and the complainant even filed the complaint before this Forum during the warranty period.  Further to support his contention, the complainant has relied upon the copy of legal notice Ex.C-2 as well as the copies of emails exchanged between the complainant and the Ops Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-11. In the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops by supplying the complainant a defective air conditioner.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserves the refund of the amount so spent by him on the purchase of the air conditioner in question.

 

7.               Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.32,500/- being the cost of the air conditioner.  We further direct the complainant to return the air conditioner in question to the Ops at the time of taking the refund of the amount.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.               This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 24, 2018.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member