BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.390 of 2019    

                                                                   Date of Inst. 05.09.2019

                                                                   Date of Decision: 17.07.2024

Pushpinder Kumar aged about 46 years son of Sh. Satpal Dinkar resident of House No.952, Din Kar Wali Gali, Ladowali Road, Arjan Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Rimpi Radios Circular Road, Valmiki Gate, Jalandhar City         through its authorized signatory.

2.       Authorized Signatory of M/s Rimpi Radios Circular Road,       Valmiki Gate, Jalandhar City.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

 Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon      (Member)

Present:        Mrs. Amandeep Kaur Gill, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                    Sh. S. C. Sood, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                    The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased one AC Mitsubishi AC Split 1.1 T.13C from the OP No.1, vide Invoice No.T-2542 dated 05.04.2018 for Rs.37,000/-. Thereafter, in the last week of March, 2019 due to starting of summer season, the complainant himself was cleaning the AC and model of the AC was of Model 2014. The complainant stunned to know about this act of the OPs as OPs intentionally and knowingly sold four years old model to the complainant under a plan. From the very first day of the purchase of the above said AC till 15 March, 2019 the complainant has having no knowledge about the illegal act committed by the OPs with the complainant. Thereafter the complainant visited office of the OPs time and again and requested for replacement of the AC, but the OPs did not care for the request of the complainant rather threatened that do what can do, now nothing could be done in this regard. The complainant is very much harassed, humiliated and given mental agony and physical harassment on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the old model AC with a brand new AC of the same model OR to refund full amount i.e. Rs.37,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its purchase till the date of actual realization of the amount. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the complainant has filed the complaint without any cause has of filed the action and imaginary ground which is non-existent and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is neither any unfair trade practice nor deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The product was sold on 05.04.2019 and the same is governed by all the terms and conditions w.e.f. 05.04.2018 itself and as such the warranty as well as guarantee clauses are covered accordingly. It is further averred that the complainant is a dishonest suitor and the complainant has no complaint with regard to the working of the product and the same is working efficiently to the best of its capacity and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. The OP is only an intermediator/agent of a known principal i.e. Mitsubishi and the principal has not been impleaded as party in the present complaint and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of to be Consumer Protection Act and compensatory cost is to be granted to the OP as the entire claim is wrong. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the AC by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved that he has purchased the AC from the OP vide tax invoice Ex.C-2 for Rs.37,000/-. The payment was made by the complainant to the OP is not disputed. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OPs on the ground that in the last week of March, 2019 the complainant found that there is sticker on the AC which was of model 2014, whereas the complainant was told that the AC is new model of 2018 and is having good response. The complainant has alleged that he was not having any knowledge that the OPs have sold the AC by mis-representing the facts i.e. about the model of the AC. He has produced on record the copy of sticker Ex.C-1. Legal notice was sent to the OPs Ex.C-3.

7.                The case of the OPs is that the OP has asked the complainant number of times to provide OPs the serial number of the product so that the exact date of manufacturing can be known, but the complainant has failed to supply the serial number of the AC. The contention of the OP is that this model was started in the year 2014, but the date of manufacturing is important. Number of ACs are manufactured in a year since the date of start of model and without serial number, this fact cannot be ascertained. The reply to the legal notice was also given by the OP, which has been proved by the complainant himself as Ex.C-5. Para No.3 of the reply to the notice shows that the OP has categorically mentioned that if the particular model is introduced in the year 2014, it does not prove that the same has been produced in that series of the year. It can be ascertained only after inspecting the AC. It has categorically been mentioned that the service conditions and benefits shall be enjoyed only from 05.04.2018 i.e. the date of purchase itself and not from the date of 2014. The complainant has not provided the serial number. Even during the course of arguments, the complainant was asked to produce the serial number of the AC, so that the exact date of manufacturing regarding mis-representation can be ascertained in order to reach to the conclusion, but the complainant has failed to produce the same even in the Commission. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service by the OPs as the OPs are ready to resolve the issue after inspecting the AC and going through the serial number, but the serial number has not been produced. So, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

17.07.2024                    Member                                President