DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Navdeep Singh (now deceased) son of Sh.Harjeet Singh, Resident of House No.3, Village Raipur Kalan, Chandigarh (U.T.), through his Legal Representatives:-

(A)      Smt. Jagdish Kaur wife of Sh.Harjeet Singh.

(B)      Smt.Harmanpreet Kaur wife of Late Sh.Navdeep Singh

(C)     Vanshmeet Kaur daughter of Late Sh.Navdeep Singh, through her mother Smt.Harmanpreet Kaur.

All residents of H.No.3, Village Raipur Kalan, Chandigarh (UT).

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       M/s. Mehar Sons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 820, Opp. Parade Ground, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh (U.T.)

          Second Address – SCO 1096, Near Hotel Piccadily, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

2]          Samsung India Electronics Ltd., 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFTI Tower 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                      PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                    MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU              MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.C.D.Jindal , Advocate for the complainant

                        OP-1 exparte

Sh.Sandeep Suri , Advocate for the OP-2.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short) on the ground that the CC had purchased One Samsung Split Air Conditioner of 1.5 Ton Capacity bearing Model No.AS18UTA for Rs.25,500/- on 21.5.2009 vide Invoice No.678 and paid the said amount in cash. 

                The CC has averred in his complaint that the said A.C. in question is not performing its primary function of cooling from the very first day of its installation.  That the CC made repeated representations to OP-1, who flatly refused to neither return the money paid by him nor exchange the said A.C. nor made any efforts to rectify the fault in the A.C.  Thereafter the CC also lodged a complaint with the Customer Care Department of OPs on 12.4.2010 and the complaint Number is “8412824428”.  But, the OPs have not responded to his request till date. 

                Aggrieved of the callous attitude of the OPs, CC prays for the return of the amount of Rs.25,500/- the price paid for the A.C. Along with Rs.60,000/- as compensation with interest @18% p.a. for causing him mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. 

2]             On notice, OPs filed their respective versions. 

                OP-1 failed to appear in the Forum, though duly served, hence was proceeded against exparte by order dated 02.08.2010.

                OP-2 on the very first appearance filed its Reply along with an application for the Inspection of A.C. in question.  On receipt of No Objection from the CC for the said inspection, orders were passed on 06.10.2010 to allow OP-2 to inspect the A.C. at the house of the complainant.

                In the meantime, the CC expired and was subsequently pleaded through his Legal Heirs vide order dated 10.03.2010 and subsequently an Amended Title of the complaint was filed.

                In the Reply, OP-2 has categorically denied that there is anything wrong with the A.C. in question and the CC be put to strict proof so that the allegations with regard to the manufacturing defect in the A.C. be ascertained.  However, on merits, OP-2 has denied any liability on its part as the said A.C. is very much perfect & in working condition and on mere assertion of the CC, it cannot be held that there is a manufacturing defect in the A.C.  It is also mentioned that the said A.C. carried warranty for the period of One Year Only, however, in  Para-7 of the Reply, it is stated that the Warranty expired on 20.05.2010 and only the Compressor of the A.C. is covered for an extended period of 5 Years and as such, the said A.C. is outside warranty. 

3]             Parties led their respective evidences.

4]             Having gone through the entire complaint and version of OP-1 and the evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs on the following grounds:-

i)         The fact with regard to the CC having purchased Split A.C. in question from OP-1 is established.  However, the non-appearance of OP-1 and failure on its part to contest the claim of the CC, is clearly proved because OP-1 preferred to remain exparte.

ii)        The presence of OP-1 could have proved as to when the first complaint with regard to problem in the A.C. was lodged with OP-1. Under present circumstances, the contentions of the CC as mentioned in his complaint go unrebutted.

iii)       However, OP-2 has not denied the fact that the CC lodged complaints on 12.4.2010 with the Customer Care Department of OPs vide Complaint NO.8412824428. So even if we presume this to be the date on which the cause of action arose, this fact still remains unaddressed by OP-2 as there is no mention about this complaint in their reply and as the same has not been denied, it strengthens the case of the CC.  The OP-2 did not make any efforts to address the complaint of the CC before filing of the present complaint.

iv)       As OP-2 had moved an application for Inspection of the A.C. in question and the same was subsequently allowed vide Order dated 06.10.2010 but thereafter OP-2 has failed to bring on record anything that could prove whether there was any outcome of the said Inspection.  We are compelled to draw an adverse inference against OP-2 under present circumstances.  We believe that OP-2 is totally non-serious in dispensing with its obligation to address the genuine grievance of the CC and that too after having moved an application for the inspection. 

v)        As the cause of action for filing the present complaint is very well within the warranty period and the fact that neither OP-1 nor OP-2 are serious enough to help the Forum in reaching a just conclusion, we have no other alternative, but to believe all the averments/contentions of the CC, as mentioned in the present complaint. 

5]             On the basis of above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to jointly & severally refund the amount of Rs.25,500/- as price of A.C. and take back the A.C. in question from the house of the CC.  We further saddle the OPs jointly & severally with a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. 

                This order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.09.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER