DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB, CAMP COURT AT DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No: BT/CC/2018/461
Date of Institution: 02.07.2018/29.11.2021
Date of Decision: 05.07.2022
Mr. Munish Kumar son of Sh. Mohan Lal resident of 451, Phase 2, Vrindavan Garden, FGC ROAD, AMRITSAR ......Complainant
Versus
- M/s Tenny Electric Co. Near Congress Bhawan, Amritsar Through its Prop./Partner/Principle Officer.
- Russelz Greenpower Ltd., C-12, Phase V, Focal Point, Ludhiana-141010 through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer.
.....Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Amended Upto Date).
Quorum: Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover, President
Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg, Member
Present: Sh. Inderjit Lakhra Adv. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. S.K. Sharma Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Ajay Shankar Adv Counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT
1. The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, dated 26.11.2021 for its disposal. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, (as amended upto date) against the Tenny Electric Co., and others (hereinafter called as opposite parties).
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Electric Lights and Fittings from the opposite party No. 1 vide its invoice No. 556 dated 1.12.2017 for Rs. 49,630/- with two year onsite warranty manufactured by the opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that the said lights got fused and off within the few days from its installation and due to this the house of the complainant became dark and without light. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties in this regard but they refused to entertain the complainant and ultimately after a lot of pressure they removed the lights but the same were not replaced with new one till today. The complainant made written request to the opposite parties, but to no effect. Due to the above said act of the opposite parties the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and financial loss. Therefore, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the said electric lights and fittings with new one or in alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 49,630/- + Rs. 6,600/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 1.12.2017 till realization.
(b) The opposite parties may be directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 3, 00,000/- alongwith litigation expense.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of no consumer dispute, maintainability, concealment of facts, act and conduct, no jurisdiction, no locus-stnadi or cause of action etc. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased Electric Lights and Fittings from the opposite party No. 1 vide its invoice No. 556 dated 1.12.2017 for Rs. 49,630/- and LED light make Crompton Greaves vide invoice No. 557 dated 1.12.2017 of an amount of Rs. 6,600/-. It is further submitted that no complaint of any sort was ever lodged with the answering opposite party so the question of non-entertaining of the complaint does not arise. It is denied that the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 1 for the replacement of above said LED lights. The only complaint which was lodged was resolved by the opposite party No. 2 on 26.6.2018 and the complainant signed the job sheet. It is further denied that the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment so the question of Rs. 3 Lakh as compensation does not arise. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. Initially on 25.10.2018 Sh. Parshant Pathak Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 but on 1.1.2019 the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.1.2019 of the Commission due to non appearance. Lateron Sh. Ajay Shanker Advocate appeared and filed an application on behalf of opposite party No. 2 for joining the proceedings and the said application was allowed vide order dated 6.9.2021 and the opposite party No. 2 is allowed to join the proceedings at the stage of arguments.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint has filed documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.
6. The opposite party at the time of filing the written version has filed documents Ex.O.P1 to Ex.O.P4.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
8. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased Electric Lights and Fittings from the opposite party No. 1 vide its invoice No. 556 dated 1.12.2017 for Rs. 49,630/- with two year onsite warranty Ex.C-2 and LED light make Crompton Greaves vide invoice No. 557 dated 1.12.2017 of an amount of Rs. 6,600/- Ex.C-3. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that the above said lights were got fused and off within the few days from its installation and the house of the complainant became dark and without lights. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant immediately informed the opposite parties to rectify the grievance of the complainant but the opposite parties refused to entertain the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant made written request to the opposite parties Ex.C-4 (Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6 are the receipts) to replace the above said lights with new one and compensate the complainant because the complainant suffered a lot of mental as well as physical harassment due to the above said act of the opposite parties. Further, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10 are the photographs of LED lights.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that no complaint of any sort was ever lodged with the opposite party No. 1 by the complainant, as such the question of non-entertaining of the complaint does not arise. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 1 for the replacement of above said LED lights and the only complaint which was lodged was resolved by the opposite party No. 2 on 26.6.2018 and the complainant signed the job sheet. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 further argued that the responsibility of giving onsite warranty is solely of the opposite party No. 2. Further, in order to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Parveen Kaushal Prop., of M/s Tenny Electric Company Ex.O.P1/1 which is nothing but word to word repetition of the written version filed by the opposite party No. 1. Further, opposite party No. 1 placed on record terms and conditions Ex.O.P1/2 vide which it is mentioned that Florecent Luminaries are guaranteed for the period of 12 months from the date of sale Gurantee does not cover lumps/tubes. But in the present complaint the complainant has purchased the above said LED lights from the opposite party No. 1 on 1.12.2017 vide invoice No. 556 Ex.C-2 and the complainant made written request on 10.5.2017 Ex.C-4 which shows that the above said LED lights of the complainant got fused and off within 12 months from the date of sale. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 argued that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 also argued that the opposite party No. 1 is acting as an agent of the opposite party No. 2, if any liabilities arises then, that is of opposite party No. 2 being manufacturer.
10. So, from the perusal of the record, it is established that the above said LED lights which were purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 got defected warranty period and the same were developed defects from the very beginning of the purchase and the complainant suffered mental as well as physical harassment due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. It is important to mention here that the complainant claimed the amount of Rs. 6,600/- from the opposite parties on the ground that he has purchased 3 WATT CROMPTON C.O.B LIGHT from the Tenny Electric Company vide bill No. 557 dated 1.12.2017 Ex.C-3, but the complainant has failed to implead the Crompton Company as party in the present complaint. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 2 has failed to place on record any document in order to rebut the case of the complainant.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 is directed to replace the above said Electric Lights, Fittings and LED Lights with new one within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the opposite party No. 2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 49,630/- as per Ex.C-2 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. The opposite party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,200/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. Copy of the order be supplied by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION
5th DAY OF JULY, 2022.
ASHISH KUMAR GROVER
PRESIDENT
NAVDEEP KUMAR GARG
MEMBER
