Haryana

Ambala

CC/288/2021

Amit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s GV Science & Surgical Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Pushkar Sharma

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  288 of 2021.

                                                          Date of Institution :    15.09.2021.

                                                          Date of decision    :    21.03.2022.

 

Amit Sharma, aged about 44 years, s/o Sh. Ashok Sharma, r/o H.No. 126, LalKurti Bazar, AmbalaCantt., Prop. of M/s Amit Enterprises, Shop No. 14, Hotel SukhSagar, AmbalaCantt.

                                                                                       ……. Complainant.

 

1. M/s GV Science & Surgical Co., (Electronic Division), Nicholson Road, Opposite Nigar Cinema, AmbalaCantt., through its authorized signatory (person), M.No. 9053458108.
2. M/s Carrier, Media Private Ltd., 1^st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector 32, Gurugram (Haryana) -122001.
3. M/s Oberoi Service Centre, Authorized Technician,Shastri Colony, AmbalaCantt.

          ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

ShriVinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

                            

Present:       ShriPushkar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OPs No.1 to 3 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated         07.12.2021.

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’)praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund Rs.36,200/- or replace the defective A.C. with the new one.
2. To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation expenses.
4. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant on 18.04.2021 visited the OP No.1 for purchasing of Split A.C. for his household purpose. OP no.1 assured and insisted to buy the HITACHI A.C. and on believing on assurance of OP No.1, complainant purchased the same on 18.04.2021 vide invoice No.51/2021/22 dated 18.04.2021. After the purchase of AC was installed by OP No.1 and payment of installation of A.C. was also given from pocket of complainant. After 5-6 days, the A.C. stopped working and complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 and registered the complaint regarding the non-working of A.C.to which OP no.1 showed no response and rejected the genuine request of complainant. Then, complainant visited the authorized service centre of HITACHI and after formal complaint, representative of HITACHI, visited the premises of complainant and after checking, he told the complainant that A.C. given by OP No.1 is defective and officer mailed to their head office and also to OP No.1 to replace the A.C. as soon as possible. After which, OP No.1 apologized to complainant for giving the defective A.C. Complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 for collecting the new replaced A.C. to which OP No.1 again hoodwink the complainant by giving another brand A.C. of make and marka Carrier after giving assurance and quality of product. Complainant agreed upon the continues insisting of OP No.1 to buy the Carrier A.C. instead of HITACHI. OP No.1 handed over a back date bill dated 18.04.2021 having invoice No. 51/2021-22, of Carrier A.C. illegally to which complainant objected at the samebut OP No.1 told that is their normal course of business. OP no.1 replaced the A.C. of Carrier 18 K3* Emperia NX split A.C. but unfortunately this A.C. was also become non-functional after the installation of the same in the premises of complainant towhich complainant again visited the OP No.1 showroom to register the complaint but OP No.1 resisted to take action against the genuine complaint of complainant. Complainant visited the OP No.3 for checking and working of Carrier A.C. to which OP No.3 told that A.C. is internally damaged. Complainant again visited OP No.1 and raised the complaint, then OP No.1 handed over him illegal invoice in back date, after which, OP No.1 issued a new Tax invoice No. 221/2021-22 dated 18.06.2021. OP No.1 sold the A.C. bill/cash memo No. 327 dated 18.04.2021 of Rs.36,200/- to the complainant for an amount with warranty period of one year for any mechanical/technical defect. At the time of purchase of A.C., OP no.1 assured the complainant on behalf of OP No.2 that OPs will be responsible for any technical and mechanical defect in A.C for one year. Complainant purchased the said A.C. after paying Rs.36,200/- by the OPs. On 18.06.2021, A.C. stopped working and complainant immediately complaint the OPs about the non-working of A.C. Complainant registered complaint on customer care number of OP No.2 and the engineer i.e. OP no.3, who told the complainant that A.C. is not repairable.The Ops have not only committed deficiency in service but are also indulged into unfair trade practiceHence, the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, noneappeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 to 3 before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.12.2021.

4.           Learned counsel for the complainanttendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.           We have heard for the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.

6.           Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant purchased HITACHI A.C. and on the assurance of OP No.1, complainant purchased the same on 18.04.2021 vide invoice No.51/2021/22 dated 18.04.2021 (Annexure C-7).The grievance of complainant is that AC in question started giving problem from the very beginning during the warranty period and the complaint had made numbers of complaints regarding the above said defect, but the defect could not be rectified. Therefore, the complainant requested to OP No.1 to get rectified the above said manufacturing defect or replace the AC with new one, but despite that his grievance could not be redressed forcing him to approach this Commission.

7.                     He further argued that OP No.1 despite removing the defect in the HITACHI AC and replaced the same with one carrier 18K3* EMPERIA NX SPLIT AC 500725853202009033 to the complainant and issued bill dated 18.4.2021 (Annexure C-2) for Rs.36,200/- vide invoice No.51/2021-22 dated 18.04.2021. The said AC also started giving the problem again after installation. The complainant registered a complaint on customer care number of times (Annexure C-4 and C-5) and the engineer of OP No.3 told the complainant that AC is defective and is not repairable. The OP No.1 again issued a bill dated 18.6.2021 (Annexure C- 1).  However, the OP No.1 has failed to remove the defects in the AC of the complainant. It is proved that the AC purchased by the complainant was in warranty period, therefore he is entitled to get the AC replaced from the OP No.1. The OPs have not contested the complaint. In this case, the OPs have proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus, we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by an affidavit and other supporting documents. Thus we are of the view that OPs are found deficient in providing service to the complainant and Ops are liable to replace the defective AC with new one of the same model, if they are not in position to replace the AC of the same model then to refund the cost of AM, to the complainant and are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

8.           In view of above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be accepted and same is hereby allowed against the OPs and they are directed to comply with the following directions, jointly and severally, within 45 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the AC in question with new one of the same model. If they are not in position to replace the AC of the same model, then to refund the cost of AC amounting Rs.36,200/- alongwith interest @5% per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint i.e15.09.2021, till its realization.

(ii)     To pay Rs.2,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii)    To pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

                   Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 21.03.2022.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)          (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                      Member                         President

 

 

Present:       Shri Pushkar Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OPs No.1 to 3 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated         07.12.2021.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on:21.03.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                      Member                         President