Dr.Sateesh Ghatti filed a consumer case on 22 Nov 2022 against M/s Raipur Electronics Pvt.Ltd in the Ludhiana Consumer Court. The case no is CC/22/182 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Dec 2022.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 182 dated 04.05.2022. Date of decision: 22.11.2022.
Dr. Sateesh Ghatti aged about 53 years r/o. House No.1669, GRD Society, Sector-39, Ground Floor, Ludhiana, Mobile No.9914705172, 9855025172, Email:sateeshghatti@gmail.com. 141010. ..…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-30-4167, Beantpura, Hargobind Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana-141008, through its Managing Director, Mobile No.8146905000, 8146906000, Email:Ludhiana@raipurelectronics.com.141010.
2. M/s. Carrier Medea India Private Limited, through its Managing Director, situated at 1st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 2, 35 & 36 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. S.S. Heer, Advocate.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. The facts set out in the complaint are that the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 for purchase of two window air conditioner units and placed order No.CRP/SO2122/01804 dated 31.03.2022 for Carrier-WAC-18K Estrella 55(W) and made cash payment of Rs.66,000/- in advance. Opposite party No.1 delivered the air conditioners at the address of the complainant. At the time of delivery of the air conditions, the products were found to be old model with damaged packing box. This fact was brought into the notice of representatives who visited to deliver the air conditioners but they showed ignorance and assured that new brand units are inside. On the next day, the representative of opposite party No.1 came to the house of complainant for installation of two units of air conditions and demanded Rs.1500/- as installation charges which is totally illegal and against the ethics of business. The complainant again pointed out the poor condition/quality of the packing boxes and asked the representative to first check the units and then install the same if found new brand. The complainant also informed that the grill of the air conditioner is broken and need replacement. Even the said units were found to be full of dust and were old units. The complainant visited shop of opposite party No.1 and pointed out the same, upon which opposite party No.1 agreed to replace one air conditioner but demanded the parts back which were taken by their representative at the time of installation. However, the representative of opposite party No.1 asked the complainant that unless the installation charges of Rs.1500/- are not paid he will not return the parts and thereafter, on receipt of Rs.1500/- the representative of opposite party No.1 returned the parts to the complainant. When the complainant asked for the receipt of Rs.1500/- then he assured that same will be made available later on. Opposite party No.1 replaced one unit of air conditioner with Hitachi AC-RAW BHEDO(W) vide delivery challan cum invoice No.CRP/SA 2223/00018 dated 02.04.2022 for Rs.33,500/-. In this way, opposite party No.1 sent Hitachi brand instead of Carrier brand and also charges Rs.300/- extra and refused to replace the old unit of carrier brand with new one and also refused to issue receipt of Carrier air conditioner. In this manner, the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice by selling old/used air conditions as brand new product. The complainant has been regularly visiting opposite party No.1 for supplying brand new air conditioner and to issue receipt but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. In the end, the complainant has made a prayer with direction to opposite parties to refund Rs.33,300/- as cost of Carrier branch air conditions, Rs.1500/- as installation charges, Rs.300/- as freight charges along with interest @18% per annum and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- tor causing mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.08.2022.
3. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 invoice dated 31.03.2022, Ex. C2 is the another invoice dated 02.04.2022, Ex. C3 and Ex. C4 are the copies of text messages, Ex. C5 is the slip of Carrier air conditioner, Ex. C6 is also the slip of Hitachi window air conditioner, Ex. C7 is the warranty card and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.
5. It is the settled law that whenever a brand new product is sold to the customer, there is an implied contract carrying an express guarantee that the product being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained. Section 2(xx) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word “Express Guarantee” which means any statement, affirmation or promise made by seller or service provider relating to a product or a service which he affirms to be true and genuine and if the product does not confirm the statement made therein. It is evident in the case in hand that the moment when both the air conditioners were delivered at the residence of the complainant, the complainant found it to be an old model with the damaged packing boxes and this fact was immediately brought to the notice of the representative of the opposite parties. Eve when Mr. Nirmal Singh Bedi who claimed to be incharge of service station of the opposite parties for the purpose of installation of air conditioner and future service of air conditioner, was made aware of these defects. The complainant even visited the shop of the opposite parties and finally the opposite parties did replace one of the units of air conditioner with air conditioner of another make Hitachi. The unrebutted evidence goes to show that the opposite parties had sold the used air conditioners b projecting it to be new one. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(47) (E) of the Consumer Protection Act. It appears that the intentions of the opposite parties was to cheat the complainant since the very inception of the transaction of sale. The contentions of the complainant that he has suffered mental agony, pain and harassment is tenable.
6. During the course of arguments, it has been brought to the notice of this Commission by the complainant that the old used air conditioner is lying intact with him and he is ready to return the same to the opposite parties in case he is adequately compensated.
7. Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for the liability of the product manufacturer and Section 86 of the Act provides for the liability of the product seller which is reproduced hereunder:-
“84. Liability of product manufacturer: (1) A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if
(2) A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action even if he proves that he was not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty of a product.
86. Liability of product sellers. A product seller who is not a product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if
(a) he has exercised substantial control over the designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labeling of a product that caused harm; or
(b) he has altered or modified the product and such alteration or modification was the substantial factor in causing the harm; or
(c) he has made an express warranty of a product independent or any express warranty made by a manufacturer and such product failed to conform to the express warranty made by the product seller which caused the harm; or
(d) the product has been sold by him and the identity of product manufacturer of such product is not known, or if known, the service of notice or process or warrant cannot be effected on him or he is not subject to the law which is in force in India or the order, if any, passed or to be passed cannot been forced against him; or
(e) he failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining such product or he did not pass on the warnings or instructions of the product manufacturer regarding the dangers involved or proper usage of the product while selling such product and such failure was the proximate cause of the harm.
8. In the given set of circumstances, the case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 84 and 86 of the Act and the product liability action initiated by him against the opposite parties on account of sale of defective product i.e. air conditioner is sustainable.
9. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant subject to handing over the old air conditioner make Carrier to the opposite parties in its existing condition within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the same along with interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual realization. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
10. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:22.11.2022.
Gobind Ram.
Dr. Sateesh Ghatti Vs M/s. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. CC/22/182
Present: Sh. S.S. Heer, Advocate for complainant.
OPs exparte.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant subject to handing over the old air conditioner make Carrier to the opposite parties in its existing condition within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the same along with interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual realization. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:22.11.2022.
Gobind Ram.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.