Delhi

North East

CC/74/2020

Harish Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nutan Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 74/20

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Harish Chander, S/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash R/o O-34/A-5 & O-11/B-3 Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.         3.	Nutan Electronics Through Proprietor/Authorized Representative, H-122 A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095   M/s Babylon Sales and Services Through Authorized Representative, C-1, East Baldev Park, Parwana Road, Delhi-110051   Carrier Media India Pvt. Ltd. Through Authorized Representative Plot No. 10 A, Sector-5, GC Bawal Haryana-123501	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

10.12.20 07.10.22 03.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 06.06.19 the Complainant purchased an AC Model no. SAC-1.5TR 18 K Emperia Neo+ Hybridget Inv-3S Carrier Split from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 36,000/-. The Complainant submitted that after the 8^th day of purchase i.e. 14.06.19 the said AC stopped giving cool air. Thereafter, the Complainant made various complaints to Opposite Party No.2 on different dates. The Complainant stated that the technical team came to his house and repaired the AC stated that “Now the said AC would not make any discomfort to you as they have cured the defects” but the defects kept on coming after few days of repair. The Complainant stated that on 08/09.07.19 Opposite Party No.2 and 3 replaced the old AC with a new AC but the second AC also shows the problem of non-cooling. The Complainant made various complaints to Opposite Party No.1 to 3 on different dates and also the officials of Opposite Party No.1 to 3 started saying that the above said model have manufacturing defect but they cannot refund the money. The Complainant also made written complaint to Opposite Party No.1 to 3 by India Post on 30.09.19 but all in vain. The Complainant stated that he visited Opposite Party No.1 to 3 many times requesting them to refund his amount of Rs. 36,000/- but Opposite Party No.1 to 3 flately refused to refund the money by saying that “ Koi Paisa Wapas Nahi Milega Jaan Pyari Hai to Chale Jao Yaha Se”. The Complainant stated that he had sent a legal notice to Opposite Party No.1 to 3 dated 25.08.20 through speed post. After receiving legal notice the representative of Opposite Party No.3 visited house of Complainant either to replace the AC in question second time and stated that “Ya Court Me Jaker Kai Saal Dhakke Khalo, Kuch Nahi Milega”. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 36,000 i.e. the cost of AC with interest @ 24 % p.a. from 06.06.19 and Rs. 30,000/- for grant medical expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2

2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 despite service of notice on 21.01.21. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 were proceed against Ex-parte vide order dated 22.02.22. 

Case of the Opposite Party No.3

3. The Opposite Party No.3 contested the case and file written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.3 that the complainant had purchased the AC on 06.06.19 as per the standard terms and conditions of warranty on the said product. However, unfortunately the said product developed certain issues which were duly attended to by the Opposite Party.
4. That after the purchase and installation of the said product, the complainant in the month of June lodged several complaints regarding the said product and all his complaints were duly addressed with the best possible technical help at all times.
5. That since the complainant was unhappy with the said product and as a goodwill measure, the Opposite Party replaced the said product with a brand new AC of the same make and model within 35 days of purchase of the said product.
6. That unfortunately, the new AC developed some snags and on the complaint of the complainant, the technician inspected the said new AC and found that there was a water leakage issue with the said product. However, the complainant did not want to get any repairs done and started demanding a replacement without even allowing the technicians to thoroughly inspect the said product and provide assistance.
7. That despite several visits and on the receipt of the legal notice dated 14.08.20, the Opposite Party decided to refund the price of the said product which has been admitted by the complainant himself. A representative of the Opposite Party duly communicated the same to the complainant via email dated 14.10.20.
8. That despite the above and several efforts made by the Opposite Party to reach out, the complainant started demanding undue compensation and costs from the Opposite Party which was completely unjustified. It is humbly submitted that the Opposite Party had already replaced the said product with a new AC and was willing to refund the entire cost of the said AC but the complainant due to reasons best known to him refused to cooperate.
9. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. II(2006) CPJ 3 (SC) has held that any relief outside the terms and conditions of the manufacturer warranty could not be sustained. In the present case, the terms and conditions of the warranty did not provide for replacement and or refund. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered it illegal on part of the fora below to have travelled beyond the conditions of warranty and award replacement/refund. The company was willing to repair/replace free of cost any parts during the period of warranty. Towards the fulfilment of this commitment, it replaced the engine. There has been absolutely no deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties and both the fora  below wrongly held them liable.
10.  It is submitted that in the complaint apart from narrating the fact, the complainant has not provided any proof of any monetary loss etc. and in such circumstances, the prayer for a compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- clearly reveals that the sole intent of the complainant is to misuse the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to enjoy windfall gains and cause wrongful loss to the Opposite Party.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3

11. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.3 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

12. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

13. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Split AC on 06.06.19 for a sum of Rs. 36,000/-. The complainant submitted that within 8 days of purchase there was problem in the AC and Complainant took up the matter with Opposite Parties. Then the old AC was replaced with new AC but the new AC was also having same problem. Complainant again took up the matter with the Opposite Parties on various occasions. The Complainant stated that he visited Opposite Parties many times requesting them to refund the cost of AC i.e. Rs. 36,000/- which was refused by the Opposite Party. So, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.
14. Opposite Party No.3 admitted that Complainant had purchased an AC and there was problem in the said AC which was duly replaced by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party also admitted that the new AC was also having some problem and they offer to repair the said AC. In case Complainant want for refund of the cost of AC they are willing to refund the entire cost of the said AC but the Complainant due to reasons best known to him refuse to cooperate. In this regard, they have sent mail to the Complainant on 14.10.20.
15. It is clear from the case that there was problem in the AC and Opposite Party No.3 was willing to refund the entire cost of AC on 14.10.20. Complainant filed this complaint on 10.12.20 in the Commission i.e. after 2 months from the offer gave by the Opposite Party No.3 to the Complainant for refund of entire cost of the AC. Complainant also failed to produce any evidence regarding illness of his mother due to malfunctioning of the AC. As he enclosed prescription by the Doctor which was dated 03.07.18 which is before the date of purchase of the AC.
16. In view of the above discussion, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties are directed to refund the cost of the AC i.e. Rs. 36,000/- to the Complainant on receipt of AC in question within one month from the date of this order.
17. Order announced on 03.03.22.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President