BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 410 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 1.8.2019
Date of Decision : 25.02.2022.
Sanjay Sharma, aged 42 years son of Sh. Sonu Bramhapal Sharma, aged about 41 years, resident of Highway Glory Restaurant, F2, Krushnakunj Appartment Kamala Nagar, Amarawati Road, Nagpur (Urban), Indl. Area, Nagpur, Maharashtra, now at House No. 175/7 MITC Colony, Sirsa, C/o Sh. B.S. Vinayak, Advocate.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/S Janki Dass and Sons, Sirsa Circular Road, Sirsa through its proprietor.
2. LLOYD Company, Corporate Office “ORG Towers, 2D, Sector 126 Expressway, Uttar Pradesh Noida- 201304.
3. Swami Refrigeration, 15, New M.C. Market Old Civil Hospital Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.S. Vinayak, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. T.S. Jangra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite parties no.1 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that on 31.7.2018 complainant had purchased one air conditioner of one ton of LLOYD company for an amount of Rs.29,000/- vide invoice No. 582 dated 31.7.2018 from op no.1 after every type of assurances given by op no.1 regarding best quality of air conditioner. However, just after 15/20 days, the AC stopped working properly and did not give cooling and even after its repairs for two times by mechanics of ops, it is not working and not giving cooling properly but now op no.1 has refused to repair the air conditioner. Hence, this complaint.
2. Initially op no.1 appeared through its representative but when the case was fixed for filing written statement, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte. Op no.3 did not bother to appear after service of notice and as such op no.3 was also proceeded against exparte.
3. Op no.2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections and denying the allegations of complainant. It is submitted that op never denied services to the complainant and has attended all his calls and no technical or major defect was ever found in the air conditioner and only minor adjustment was done and wet servicing was done once. The answering op is still ready and willing to check and repair the AC (if any defect is found) subject to terms and conditions of warranty. In additional objections, it is submitted that the business of all consumer durables of op no.2 has been taken over by Havells India Limited and that Havells India Limited is authorized to pursue all the consumer cases of op no.2 company. No technical expert report has been attached by complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the AC in the absence of which manufacturing defect cannot be ruled out. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.C1 and copies of emails Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.
5. OP no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing ample opportunities.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. It is proved on record from copy of invoice dated 31.7.2018 Ex.C1 that complainant purchased air conditioner in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.29,000/- and admittedly said AC is manufactured by op no.2. The complainant has alleged that since date of purchase, the air conditioner is not functioning properly and not giving proper cooling and same is having manufacturing defect. The complainant has also placed on record copies of emails Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 sent to ops regarding defect in the air conditioner. The op no.2 has not proved its plea through cogent and convincing evidence by way of any expert opinion/ report that no technical or major defect was found in the air conditioner and only minor adjustment was done. According to complainant, even after repair of the air conditioner by the mechanic of the ops for two times, the defect could not be removed. Since, op no.1 who is seller of the air conditioner after appearance has not refuted the allegations of complainant by filing written version rather opted to be proceeded against exparte and op no.2 despite availing ample opportunities did not lead any evidence in support of its version and to rebut the evidence led by complainant, so the evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. So, we have no other option but to rely upon the version of complainant that air conditioner purchased by him on 31.7.2018 developed defect in the warranty period and non repairing of the same and not making it defect free clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of op no.1 seller and op no.2 manufacturer of the AC. Since the defect in the air conditioner developed within a short time of 15-20 days and same could not be removed even after repairs for two times and no expert opinion has been placed on file by op no.2 to prove the fact that there is no manufacturing defect in the air conditioner, therefore, ops no.1 and 2 are liable to replace the air conditioner with a new one or to make refund of the price of the air conditioner. However, complainant has not raised any grievance against op no.3 and as such op no.3 is hereby exonerated from any liability.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 and they are directed to replace the air conditioner with a new one of same make and model and if replacement of the same is not possible, then to make refund of the total amount of Rs.29,000/- i.e. price of the air conditioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The ops no.1 and 2 are also directed to pay composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for harassment and litigation expenses. In case, ops no.1 and 2 fails to comply with the order, further action under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shall be initiated against them. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 25.02.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
