Haryana

Ambala

CC/126/2020

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s S.R. Jain - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 126 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution         :  15.06.2020.

                                                          Date of decision   :   07.04.2021.

 

Suresh Kumar son of Shri Devi Dayal, resident of Gali No.2, Village Jandli, Jandli Part (113), Ambala City-134003.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

 

 

1. M/s S.R. Jain Electronics, Near Church, Kalka Chowk, Ambala City.
2. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., through its Managing Director, A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.  

 

         ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

OPs already ex parte.

 

ORDER:     SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.34,000/-, being cost of the Air Conditioner.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To award the aforementioned amount alongwith interest @18% per annum.
4. To pay Rs.33,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the OP No.1 is the distributor of Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. i.e. OP No.2. Complainant had purchased one 1.5T Split Air Conditioner (hereinafter referred as AC) of Intex make bearing No.2112340580172100589 vide Invoice No.00369 dated 13.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.34,000/- from the OP No.1. At the time of purchase, OP No.1 had assured him about the quality and performance of the AC and had further assured that the same carries five year warranty. To the surprise of the complainant, the AC started giving problem just within few months of its purchase and he approached the OP No.1 and it was told to him that gas of the AC leaked and has been refilled and assured that now there is no problem with the functioning of the AC. After few months, the AC again started giving problem, the OP No.1 again made the same excuse and refilled the gas in the AC. On 15.05.2020, again the AC stopped working and he approached the OP No.1, who clearly told him that there is manufacturing defect in the AC due to which there is leakage of gas frequently and if he wants to get the gas refilled, then he shall have to pay the price of the gas plus service charges, despite the fact that the OP No.1 at the time of sale had told him that the AC carries a five year warranty for every type of defect. He requested the OP No.1 to get the AC replaced as it is not working and has manufacturing defect due to which the gas is leaking frequently, but the OP no.1 refused to replace the AC. By not rectifying the problem of the AC, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Separate registered notices were issued to OPs No.1 & 2, but none has turned up on their behalf, accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.02.2021.

3.                The complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                From the perusal of the invoice dated 13.05.2018 (Annexure C-1), it is evident that the complainant purchased an AC from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.29,500/- and one stabilizer for a sum of Rs.4,500/- and had paid in total Rs.34,000/- to it. On the warranty card (Annexure C-3), it is clearly mentioned that “warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defect for a period of 1 year on product & additional 4 years on compressor from the time of its original purchase”. Complainant has argued that after few months of its purchase, the AC in question, it stopped working. He approached the OP No.1 for the repair of the defective AC and it was told to him that there is manufacturing defect in the AC as a result whereof, there is leakage of gas frequently and if he wants to get the gas refilled, then he has to pay the cost of the gas and service charges. As the AC got defective from the very beginning of its purchase, therefore, he requested the OPs either to rectify the defects occurred in it, free of costs or to replace the same with the new one but they refused to do so.  The OPs by selling a defective AC and not rectifying the defects occurred in it, have committed deficiency in service. Therefore, they are liable to refund the cost of the AC. In support of his version, he has placed reliance on the order dated 11.02.2014, passed by Delhi State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Jugnu Dhillon Versus Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. and ors. wherein it was held that-Commission on number of occasions have reiterated that in the event  when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning, it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product- If the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous. It may be stated here that none of the OPs have preferred to appear before this Commission to rebut the above said version of the complainant. Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. Since the AC in question got defective within few month of its purchase i.e. within warranty and the OPs could not rectify the problem occurred in it, therefore, they are deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Considering all the facts of the present case and the view taken by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, in the case of Jugnu Dhillon Versus Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. and ors. (supra),  we also feel that the OP No.1 being the seller and OP No.2 being the manufacturer, are liable to refund the cost of the AC in question.  Complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the AC of Rs.34,000/-. From the invoice, it is evident that cost of the AC is of Rs.29,500/- only. The OPs are thus liable to refund Rs.29,500/- alongwith interest to the complainant. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and the OPs are jointly and severally directed in the following manner:-

1.  
2.  
3.  

 

         The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 7% per annum on the awarded amount besides litigation costs w.e.f. 15.06.2020 i.e. the date of filing of the complaint, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.          

Announced on :07.04.2021.

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President