Delhi

East Delhi

CC/478/2013

Manish Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navrang Audio Video - Opp.Party(s)

20 Aug 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

          

CC No.478/2013:

In the matter of: 

Sh. Manish Bansal

S/o. Sh. Om Prakash Bansal

R/o. Second Floor, C/o. B.D.Kaushik,

Shop Plot No.37,

Pandav Nagar,

Delhi – 110 092

Complainant 

Vs

 

1. M/s. Navrang Audio Video (P) Ltd. 

              D – 10, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar,

              New Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Service CentreAt:

Ground Floor, 35 F.I.E. Patparganj Industrial Area,

Delhi – 110 092

(Through its AR/ Director/ Manager)

 

3. M/s. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Ltd.

            Corporate Office At :

            A-15, 1st Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

            Mathura Road, New Delhi

           (Through its AR/ Director/ Manager)

 

 

                                                                                       Date of Admission -10/06/2013

                                                                           Date of Order         - 09/11/2015

ORDER

 

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

           

                The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Hitachi Window AC Model 418 ERD with a voltage stabilizer from Respondent No.I for Rs.28,400/-.  After three or four days the said AC various problems cropped up in it viz., bad smell from the AC, Noise from the AC machine, Auto Swing not working and poor remote function.  It is alleged that the complainant took an Annual Maintenance Contract from Respondent No.II by making a payment of Rs.1,958/- vide Invoice No.7263 dated 23/06/2012.  Several complaints reckoning from 27/06/2011 (Complaint No.11062700787)were lodged by the complainant but in vain.  Recurrent visits of Respondent No.II on repeated reminders to rectify the defects in the AC were of no consequence.  It is, further, alleged that the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed till date. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of the said AC with a new one or refund of Rs.28,400/-, the cost of the AC, compensation of Rs.20,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by her, Rs.10,000/- for the deficient services provided to him and Rs.5,500/- as the litigation cost.

            Only Respondent No.II put up appearance.  None appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.I and III but no written statement filed by any of the respondents.

            Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case.

            Heard and perused the record.

            The fact of purchase of a Hitachi Window AC Model WAC 418ERD by the complainant on 24/06/2011 for Rs.26,300/- and a 4KVA Stabilizer for Rs.2,100/- vide Retail Invoice No.A15014, Book No.01 dated 24/06/2011, copy of which is placed on record,  is not in dispute. It is also evident from the record that the complainant had entered into a Semi Comprehensive Service Contract for his said AC from Respondent No.II by making a payment of Rs.1,958/- vide Invoice No.7263 dated 23/06/2012 for a period of one year from 23/06/2012 to 23/06/2013.  Copy of the said contract is also filed on record.  Further, it is apparent from the perusal of the email threads exchanged between the complainant and the Customer Care Executives of Respondent No.III that the AC of the complainant was suffering from varied defects namely, bad smell from the AC, Noise from the AC machine, Auto Swing not working, etc. within the basic one year warranty period and the complainant had made frequent complaints to the respondents for the rectification of those defects.  In the email dated 15/06/2012, Uchita, the Customer Care Executive of Respondent No.III, while regretting the long delay in the redressal of the grievance of the complainant has tendered apology on behalf of Respondent No.III for the severe discomfort faced by him and assured him resolution of his grievance on priority basis.  The said defects in the AC were not rectified within the warranty period and continued even after the expiry of the warranty period during the One Year Semi Comprehensive Service Contract for the period 23/06/2012 to 22/06/2013 which the complainant had taken.  On bare reading of the email dated 09/05/2013 of Mr. Binay, the Customer Care Executive of Respondent No.III, it is clear that the defects alleged by the complainant in the AC had not been rectified till that date.  The alleged defects that had arisen in the said AC within the warranty period had not been rectified even during the period when the said AC was covered under Semi Comprehensive Service Contract which followed suit immediately beyond the warranty period.  This leaves no room for doubt that the alleged defects were beyond repairs but the Respondent Nos. II & III were not ready to accept this fact expressly. 

            It is pertinent to mention here that the allegations made in the complaint and reaffirmed on oath by the complainant in his affidavit by way of evidence have not been controverted by the respondents.  It is a settled law that allegations raised in the complaint and reiterated in the affidavit and which have not been controverted by the respondents shall be taken to be true and there is no reason for us to disbelieve them.  As such the same are taken as true. 

The complainant has failed to make out a case against Respondent No.I.  As such we exonerate it from any liability under this complaint towards the complainant. 

As a sequel of the above discussion, we hold the Respondent Nos.II & III deficient in providing services to the complainant and direct them to pay to the complainant, jointly or severally, Rs.26,300/-, the cost of the AC in question together with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment meted out to him and this amount shall also include the cost of litigation.  The complainant shall hand over the old AC to the Respondent No.II/III at the time of receiving the amount so awarded to him.  Let this order be amount be paid within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest over this amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till it is finally paid.

           

            Copies of the order may be supplied to the parties as per rules.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                                           (N.A.Zaidi)

         Member                                                                                                                        President