Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/103/2022

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kamboj Electric Works - Opp.Party(s)

S.K Sardana

18 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.103/2022.

Date of instt.: 02.05.2022. 

                                                          Date of Decision: 18.08.2023.

 

Rohit Kumar son of Shri Gulshan Kumar, resident of Near Kheri Chowk, Bhuna Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                   ……….Complainant.    

                                                Versus

 

1.M/s Kamboj Electric Works, Naya Bazar, Bhuna Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/authorized signatory.

2.Hitachi AC Home and Life Solutions India Limited301, Third Floor, DMRC Building, New Ashok Nagar, Metro Station, New Delhi, 110096 through its Managing Director.

3.M/s R.S.Service Station, Bigher Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/Authorized signatory.

4.Kuldeep Mechanic of M/s R.S.Service Station, Bigher Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..……..Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.   

 

Before:            Sh. Rajbir Singh, President.

                        Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

                        Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

         

Present:            Sh. S.K.Sardana, Advocate for complainant.

                        Ops No.1,3 & 4 exparte

Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2.

                      

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

                        In the present compliant the complainant has come with the version that he had purchased Hitachi Air Conditioner 1.5 Ton for a sum of Rs.34,000/- from Op No.1 vide invoice No.125 dated 23.07.2021; that the complainant was to get his air conditioner services, therefore, he contacted the Op No.1 and further contacted Ops No.2, 3  and 4 besides sending service request No.22033107249 followed by another service request No. 22033006703 but it not only refused to service the same but also denied to redress his grievance; that the complainant requested the Ops besides serving of legal notice to admit his claim and to return the original cost of the air conditioner but it did not yield anything.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service and indulged in unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

2.                          Notices were issued to the opposite parties but Ops No.1, 3 & 4 did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered cover, therefore, Ops No.1,3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.06.2022. Op No.2 appeared before this Commission but failed to file its reply within stipulated period, therefore, its right to file the reply was struck off vide order dated 26.07.2022.

3.                          We have heard ld. counsels for the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

4.                          The complainant has come with the plea that the purchased air conditioner from Op No.1 vide invoice (Annexure C1) went out of order soon and the Ops have failed to provide after sale service despite the fact that service requests (Annexure C7 & Annexure C8) were made to the Ops. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the Ops have neither refunded the cost of the air conditioner nor replaced the same as it went out of order during the warranty period.

5.                          The evidence led by the complainant supported by his duly sworn affidavit remained unrebutted as the Ops No.1,3 & 4 did not bother to appear before this Commission and the Op No.2, though contesting the present complaint, also failed to file the reply to complaint and evidence in support thereto.

6.                          Perusal of the case file reveals that the air conditioner was purchased on 23.07.2021 and the present complaint was filed on 02.05.2022.  The warranty of the product (other than compressor) was one year from the date of invoice and the warranty of compressor was five year from the date of invoice as is reflected from the terms and conditions of the warranty. Though the complainant has made service requests to the Ops besides serving legal notice to them but there is nothing on the file to show that the air conditioner went out of order within short span and he has not enjoyed the air conditioner for a considerable period before filing the present complaint. Therefore, the plea of the complainant either to replace the air conditioner with new one or to refund the cost thereof is hereby declined. However, there is sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Ops have failed to provide the after sale service to the complainant and the air conditioner went out of order during the warranty period. This Commission presumes that the complainant must have enjoyed the air conditioner for a period more than six months, therefore, the end of justice would met if we direct the Op No.2 to return the cost of the air conditioner after deducting 30 % as depreciation. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store decided on 28.05.2014 by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No.460 of 2014.

7.                          Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Op No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.23,800/- the cost of the air conditioner after deducting 30% depreciation i.e. (Rs.34000-Rs.10200=Rs.23,800/-) subject to returning the air conditioner with its components to the Op No.2 by the complainant within a period of 15 days and further the Op No.2 is directed to make the awarded amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The complaint against Ops No.1,3 & 4 stands dismissed.

8.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 18.08.2023

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                    (Harisha Mehta)             (Rajbir Singh)                        Member                                   Member                                    President