Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/325/2019

Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New Bajaj Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Jarnail Singh

12 Oct 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.325 of 2019

Date of instt: 9.08.2019. 

                                                          Date of Decision: 12.10.2021.

 

Rajesh aged 38 years, son of Sh.Bharat Singh resident of village Parladpur, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                          ……..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. M/s New Bajaj Electronics, near PWD Rest House Chowk, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra 136132 through its authorized Signatory/Head of the Branch.

 

2.LG Electronics India Pvt.Limited, A-Wing (3^rd Floor) D03, District Center, Saket, New Delhi – 110017 through its authorized Signatory.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

                  Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.           

 

Before         Smt.   Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Sh. Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

 

Present:      Shri Jarnail Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for the OP No.2.

OP NO.1 ex-parte.

             

ORDER:

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajesh against M/s New Bajaj Electronics  etc.- the opposite parties.

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant  on the assurance of OP No.1 purchased one Air Conditioner (AC) of L.G. Company for a sum of  Rs.43,000/- vide bill No.2915 dated  5.06.2019 issued by OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of OP No.2.  It is further submitted  the said air conditioner is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and consequently, after some time of its purchase, the said AC is not functioning properly and having unwarranted noise problem, wire heating, non-cooling and automatically shuts down and it is creating foul smell problem, leakage of gas, compressor problem and after arising the above said problem and after arising the above said problem in the air conditioner, the complainant approached  the OP No.2 and made complaints on their toll free numbers and registered their complaint No. RNP190726045493 about the problems in the air conditioner on 26.7.2019.  It is also submitted that on receipt of the said  complaint of the complainant, the OP No.2 sent its mechanic who checked the AC and replaced some parts in the AC after ten days but in spite of replacement of some parts in the air conditioner, the air conditioner is still in the same position and is not functioning properly and thereafter, the complainant again contacted the same mechanic of the company  but this time the officials of the company refused to visit the site of the complainant by saying that there is manufacturing defect in the AC.  Thereafter, the complainant requested the Ops to remove the AC from the house of the complainant and to get replaced the same but none of the even tried to get removed the AC and not replaced the same and both the Ops are avoiding the liability of replacement of the AC which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the AC of the complainant with a new one and to give compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.                Upon notice OP No.1 failed to appear and contest the case despite due service. Therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.09.2019.

 

4.                The OP No.2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Purchase of the AC by the complainant has been stated to be a matter of record. However, it is submitted that the AC in question is running properly without any fault and it is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the AC in question.  It is submitted that answering OP No.2 has not shown any deficiency in services or unfair trade practice and the complainant is not entitled to any amount in the name of compensation as alleged. Thus, the OP no.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint,

 

5.                In support of his case, the complainant has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.

 

6.                On the other hand, the OP No.2 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed its evidence.

 

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

 

8.                The Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments of the complaint has argued that the AC of the complainant has been repaired after filing of the present complaint and now the AC in question is working well. He has argued that the complainant be given compensation for the harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses because  the complainant had to file the present complaint due to defect in the AC in question and the said defect has been removed only after filing of the present complaint.

 

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that there is no defect in the AC in question and the present complaint is abuse of the process of law and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation because defect in the AC has already been removed by the Ops before filing of the present complaint.

 

9.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed. The complainant has failed to place on record any copy of job sheet to prove that the defect in the AC has been removed after filing of the present complaint by the complainant.  The copy of the test message placed on the file by the complainant are   dated 26.7.2019 whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 09.08.2019, therefore, the defect if any in the AC was removed  by the Ops well before the filing of the present complaint and the present complaint becomes infructuous  as no action is required to be taken in this case.

 

10.              In view of our aforementioned findings and reasons, we do not find any force in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed become infructuous.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.                                        President.

Dated 12.10.2021.

 

                                      Member                          Member.