DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 293 of 27.7.2017

                                      Decided on: 15.7.2024

Hardeep Singh son of Baldev Singh Prop./Partner M/s Shri Sidhi Vinayak Jewellers Main Bazaar, Bajwa Colony, Near Gurudwara DMW,Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

M/s Seema Electronics, through its Prop/Authorized Signatory Sanjay & Naresh Near Street No.6, Main Road, Jujhar Nagar, Patiala, M.No.98767-63233

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Chaman Lal Verma, counsel for complainant.

                                       None for the opposite party.  

 ORDER

                                      G.S.NAGI, MEMBER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Hardeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Seema Electronics (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred by the complainant that he is running the business in the name and style of M/s Shri Sidhi Vinayak Jewellers at Patiala and in the month of June,2017 he contacted OP for installation of A.C. of the make of Whirlpool in his show room for a consideration of Rs.35500/- including installation charges of Rs.1000/- which were paid to the OP through M/s Bajaj Finance Patiala.
3. That after installation AC in question did not work properly. Complainant contacted the OP who checked the same and lodged the complaint with the Whirlpool office for the less cooling of the AC from the phone of the complainant. That after two days  of lodging of the complaint AC mechanic of the OP checked the installation of the A.C. and disclosed that manufacturing of the A.C. was of the year of 2014 which costs Rs.25,700/- thereby the OP charged Rs.9800/- in excess from the complainant.
4. That complainant requested the OP for the change of the A.C with the model of 2017 and also requested for the refund of Rs.9800/- charged extra by the OP but of no avail. Ultimately complainant got issued legal notice dated 3.7.2017 upon the OP through his counsel but the OP failed to give in reply to the legal notice. That the act and conduct of the OP caused mental harassment as well as financial loss to the complainant. That there is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay rs.9800/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from June,2017 till the date of realization; to pay Rs.25000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and financial loss alongwith Rs.10,000/-as costs of the complaint.
5. Upon notice OP appeared through its counsel and filed written reply having contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come with clean hand and has concealed the true and material facts from the Court; that the complainant has no right , title of authority to file the present complaint against the OP as the complaint has been filed on false and frivolous facts and also that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
6. On merits it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the A.C. from the shop of the OP . It is averred that as per list of April,2015 the price of A.C in question was IT 3D CL XTRM PL TV WHT(N) was Rs.38900/-(DP Rate) and MRP was Rs.40,000/-and as such has rightly charged the purchase amount of the A.C. from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments of the complainant, OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In order to prove the case, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. In additional evidence, ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C5 copy of price list of AC for the year 2017,Ex.C6 copy of price list of A.C. for the year 2014 and closed the additional evidence.
8. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Naresh Kumar, Prop. of Seema Electronics alongwith Ex.OP1 copy of dealer price list of Whirlpool Product w.e.f.1.12.2014 and requested for leading more evidence but after availing 13 opportunities OP failed to lead any more evidence and the evidence of OP was closed by order vide order dated 15.11.2018.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. Admittedly complainant had purchased split A.C. of Whirlpool make of one ton capacity from the OPs vide invoice dated 7.6.2017 for a consideration of Rs.34500/- as per Ex.C1. The allegation of the complainant  that the A.C. was not working properly and was not giving proper cooling is not supported by any evidence as no complaint regarding the  poor working of the A.C. has been placed on record by the complainant. Even the ld. counsel for the complainant during arguments has admitted that the A.C. is working satisfactorily.
11. The only allegation leveled by the complainant which needs to be adjudicated is with respect to the model and price of the A.C.as it has been alleged that the A.C. manufactured in the year 2014  was having cost of Rs.25700/-was sold to the complainant for the consideration of Rs.35500/- which included Rs.1000/- as installation charges in the year 2017.
12. The matter was also taken up with the OPs and legal notice dated 3.7.2017 was duly served upon the OPs as per Ex.C3 for the refund of Rs.9800/-charged in excess to the complainant. However, no action was taken by the OPs.
13. The OPs have denied the allegation that any excess amount of Rs.9800/- was charged to the complainant and have placed on record the copy of the price list of the manufacturing company applicable w.e.f.1.12.2014 as per Ex.OP1 according to which the MRP of the unit was Rs.38300/- and dealer price is Rs.35300/-.As such it has been pleaded that the A.C. was sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs.34500/-excluding installation charges against the dealer price of Rs.35300/- and no excess amount was charged to the complainant as Rs.1000/- was charged on account of installation charges and does not form  a part of the sale price of the A.C. However the OPs are silent about model of the A.C. and as such we are of the opinion that the A.C. of model 2014 was sold to the complainant during the year 2017.
14. We have also gone through the additional evidence produced by the complainant Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, where the complainant has produced print out of news 18 website which does not depict any date or time and as such these documents could not relied upon. The complainant alongwith his written arguments has also produced a price list of whirlpool 3D cool price as available on the website of Amazon. However,  a study of this list reveals that zero results were found for whirlpool A.C. 3D cool, the model purchased by the complainant, the price list indicates that the MRP of one ton A.C. were in the range of 37400/- and 43500/- of copper split A.C. and discounted prices were offered by the website. However, even this document does not bear any date or time. It is the prerogative of the seller to offer various discounts on MRP.It is a fact that A.C.was not sold to the complainant at a price which was higher than MRP.As such the allegation of the complainant that the A.C. was sold to the complainant at a higher price could not be proved. Also the A.C. working satisfactorily for the last 7 years as is admitted during arguments by the ld. counsel for the complainant. However, it is also a fact that the A.C. of model 2014 was sold to the complainant in the year 2017 leading to mental agony to the complainant and deems it fit to award compensation of Rs.5000/-to the complainant.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.    
16.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                           President