DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 16
Instituted on: 12.01.2018
Decided on: 23.05.2018
Randhir Singh son of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Kaithal Road, Khanauri Mandi, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. New Janta Electronics Store, Kaithal Road, Khanauri Mandi, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. Blue Star India, SCO 16-17, 3RD Floor, Fortune Chamber, Pakhowal Road, Stock Exchange, Feroz Gandhi Market, Model Gram, Ludhiana through its Manager.
3. Blue Star India, Head Office: Kasturi Building, Mohan Tea Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.
For OP No.1 : Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.
For OP NO.2&3. : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Randhir Singh, 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 the complainant approached OP number 1 and purchased one air conditioner manufactured by OP number 3 for Rs.33,000/- vide bill number 113 dated 16.4.2017. Further case of the complainant is that the air conditioner in question was having a warranty of one year for the air conditioner. Further case of the complainant is that when after its purchase, the complainant used the air conditioner in question, it was found that there is no proper cooling and after one and half months of its purchase, the said air conditioner stopped working properly. As such, the complainant lodged the complaint with the Ops, but nothing happened despite lodging of the complaint on 19.7.2017 on its toll free number. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the air conditioner in question with a new one or 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. Record shows that OP number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such, Op number 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
3. In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed material facts, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question from OP number 1, but the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is further admitted that the air conditioner in question is having the warranty of 12 months, which is required to be provided by OPs number 2 and 3 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1. However, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and affidavit closed evidence. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/4 affidavit and copies of documents 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-4 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the air conditioner in question for Rs.30,000/- by the complainant. It is not in dispute between the parties that the air conditioner in question is having a warranty of twelve months. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question on 16.4.2017 vide invoice Ex.C-4, but the fact remains that the air conditioner in question developed defect of not properly working and non providing of the cooling by it, as such, the complainant lodged the complaint with the Ops, but, the OPs failed to set right the air conditioner in question and even failed to attend the air conditioner despite serving of legal notice, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-6. It is on record that the air conditioner developed defects in it within a very short span of its purchase. We may mention that the Ops number 2 and 3, who are manufacturer of the air conditioner in question chose to remain exparte and did not put appearance nor any reply to the complaint has been filed. 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 replacement of the air conditioner with a new one or in the alternative 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 the OPs to replace the air conditioner in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.30,000/-, however, subject to returning of the old defective air conditioner by the complainant to the OPs. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further to pay Rs.5000/- 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.
May 23, 2018.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
