Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.
Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Harwinder Singh, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one AC window vide bill No. 442 dated 15.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.22000/- from Opposite Party whereas Opposite Party issued the bill in the nik name of complainant as Pinda. It is submitted that from the date of purchase, the AC in question is not working properly and not giving the proper cooling and the Opposite Party has issued defective air conditioner and deprived the legal rights of the complainant for not taking benefit of the Air Conditioner. The complainant made so many complaints to the Opposite Party for put the said AC in working condition or in the alternative replace the same or refund the cost of the AC, but the Opposite Party failed to comply with any of the condition, therefore, the necessity arose to file the present complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- Opposite Parties be directed to replace the AC with new one or refund the cost of the AC amounting to Rs.22,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase till the realization.
- Compensation of Rs.50,000/- be also granted to the complainant.
- Costs of the complaint may also be granted.
- Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party No. 1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the Opposite Party is only a selling dealer and the warranty obligations if any area to be provided by the service centre of the manufacturer and there is no defect in the sale of the product and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable against the replying Opposite Party. On merits, it is averred that no complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant with replying Opposite Party. The complainant was sold the defect free product and no complaint of any nature was reported till the filing of the present complaint by the complainant. Moreover, as per the warranty obligations the complaint if any has to be lodged with the authorised service centre of the manufacturer. No complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the replying Opposite Party, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and hence Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.
4. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No. 1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Vinod Talwar Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and argued that he purchased one AC window vide bill No. 442 dated 15.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.22000/- from Opposite Party whereas Opposite Party issued the bill in the nik name of complainant as Pinda. From the date of purchase, the AC in question is not working properly and not giving the proper cooling and the Opposite Party had sold defective air conditioner and deprived the legal rights of the complainant for not taking benefit of the Air Conditioner. The complainant made so many complaints to the Opposite Party for put the said AC in working condition or in the alternative replace the same or refund the cost of the AC, but the Opposite Party failed to comply with any of the condition, therefore, the necessity arose to file the present complaint. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties of not listening the genuine and legitimate request of the complainant is quite illegal, unwarranted and unsustainable.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 has specifically repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that no complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant with replying Opposite Party. The complainant was sold the defect free product and no complaint of any nature was reported till the filing of the present complaint by the complainant. Moreover, as per the warranty obligations the complaint if any has to be lodged with the authorised service centre of the manufacturer. No complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the replying Opposite Party, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The contention of the complainant is that since the date of purchase of AC in question it started giving problem, and the same is not working properly and not giving the proper cooling and the Opposite Party has issued defective air conditioner and deprived the legal rights of the complainant for not taking benefit of the Air Conditioner. The complainant made so many complaints to the Opposite Party for put the said AC in working condition or in the alternative replace the same or refund the cost of the AC. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the answering Opposite Party, but this contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 can not be admitted as true because if there was no defect in the AC in question, what was the need for the complainant to file the present complaint by spending huge money and by hiring a advocate. It is not disputed that the AC in dispute started giving problem within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost. In the instant case, the AC in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same. So, in such a situation, we direct all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund the price of the AC in question amounting to Rs. 22,000- to the complainant. Opposite Parties shall collect the AC in question from the house of the complainant at their own costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall refund the price of the AC in question within further 15 days. All the Opposite Parties are also jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation, besides Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
