Haryana

Kaithal

CC/107/2022

Kuldeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Soni Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Aditya Garg

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.107/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 02.05.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:02.06.2023.

 

Kuldeep S/o Sh. Ramdiya r/o near Pond, Mandi Kalan, District Jind, now residing at Gali No.10, Janakpuri Colony, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Soni Trading Company, Chhatrawas Road, near Old Bus Stand, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal through its proprietor.
2. Thermocool Engineers Corporation, R/o Patel Bazar, Behind Aggarwal Dharamshalla, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
3. Hitachi India Private Limited, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Worldmark 1, Tower B, Aerocity, Delhi-110037.

….OPs.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Aditya Garg, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OPs exparte.

               

ORDER

SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER

        Kuldeep-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.  

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a Hitachi 1.5 ton Split Air Conditioner from Op No.1 vide invoice No.E 518 dt. 09.06.2021 against the warranty of 1 year and 5 year warranty of compressor for a sum of Rs.33,000/- including SGST and CGST.  The above-said A.C. was not functioning and running properly after 10 days of its purchase and seems to be manufacturing defect in the said item/article as exists unnecessary leakage of water and oil not giving required cooling, swing system not functioning properly, mode is defective, giving heavy and unbearable noise also seems to be installed in defective way by mechanic of OPs.  The complainant made representation to the OPs on 05.10.201 vide complaint No.21100201575, on 21.03.2022 vide complaint No.22032102520 and on 25.04.2022 vide complaint No.22042503217 through telephonic and requested them to remove the defects but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

3.             Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.30.08.2022 of this commission.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith document Annexure-C1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a Hitachi 1.5 ton Split Air Conditioner from Op No.1 vide invoice No.E 518 dt. 09.06.2021 against the warranty of 1 year and 5 year warranty of compressor for a sum of Rs.33,000/- including SGST and CGST.  It is further argued that the above-said A.C. was not functioning and running properly after 10 days of its purchase and seems to be manufacturing defect in the said item/article as exists unnecessary leakage of water and oil not giving required cooling, swing system not functioning properly, mode is defective, giving heavy and unbearable noise also seems to be installed in defective way by mechanic of OPs.  The complainant made representation to the OPs on 05.10.201 vide complaint No.21100201575, on 21.03.2022 vide complaint No.22032102520 and on 25.04.2022 vide complaint No.22042503217 through telephonic and requested them to remove the defects but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

7.             The complainant has testified all the contents in the affidavit so set out by him in the complaint.  Whereas, OPs are also proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time.  So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops.  The counsel for the complainant has stated that the A.C. in question is defective and is not in working condition and request for refund of cost of A.C. in question.  Reliance is placed on the authority given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Vs. D.H.L. Worldwide 1996(4) SCC 704, in which it has been held that in case of specific term in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract.  Support can be taken from the authority laid down by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case titled as M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sashi Srivastava, 1(2000) CPJ 162, in which Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ordered for the refund of the amount in case of failure of ordered to replace.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The OPs are jointly and severally are directed to pay the amount of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from today.  However, the complainant is also directed to submit the A.C. in question with the OPs.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  It is also made clear that if the OPs are failed to pay the awarded amount of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.    

9.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.06.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.