DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.468 of 2020

Date of Instt.28.12.2020

Date of Decision: 28.09.2021

Balwinder Singh # 601/19, Manvata Nagar, Hoshiarpur-146001.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Perfect Electricals, Lov Kush – Milap Chowk Jalandhar City-144001.

2. Khaitan India Limited, 46C, J. L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071.

..…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present: Complainant in Person.

Sh. Subhash Sood, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. H. L. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Kuljit Singh (President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments thatcomplainant has purchased Gas Water Heater (Khaitan India Ltd) Model Name Inferno, Model No.KGW16H from dealer OP No.1 vide Tax Invoice No.GST-1324/19-20 dated 31.12.2019 for Rs.3400/-. OP-2 is manufacturing of product which is within the warranty of one year. Gas water heater got defective within a period of three months and complainant approached OP-1 to exchange/replace or refund of amount paid to OP-1 but did not paid any heed to request and told that they sell what the manufacturer delivers i.e. OP-2. He also made written request to OPs vide speed post/ registered letter dated 07.12.2020 for defective gas water heater to be replaced. Ops could not resolve the problem within defective gas water heater which could lead to dangerous mishap to complainant and his family. Lastly prayer has been made Ops be directed to replace defective product or to refund the product amount of Rs.3400/-. He also claimed Rs.5,000/- as litigation and Rs.10000/- as harassment.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 has filed written reply and contested the complaint by submitted that We have delivered the genuine product in good and working conditions as per his own admission in the complaint that product was working all right for three month. Warranty of product concern is from OP-2. OP-1 is nothing do anything except to sell the genuine products in working and good conditions. Answering OP guided the complainant to approach Company service centre for resolving his complaint and in turn the complainant reported answering OP that product was set right by company and company also confirmed to them. Thereafter complainant never approached to answering OP. Other averments of complaint denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3. OP No.2 has filed separate reply and submitted that answering OP never received any complaint from complainant Balwinder Singh about any manufacturing defect. On the other hand, the OP-2 is ready to replace the product purchased by complainant. OP-2 being a consumer care spirited company is ready to replace the product without any condition. Lastly prayer has been made that the complainant be directed to withdraw the complaint as OP-2 is ready to replace the product without any condition and without any costs etc.

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

5. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand have also gone through the ascase file very carefully.

7. There is no dispute about the purchase of product in dispute and its warranty. In this complaint, complainant has claimed replacement of product. On the other hands, OP-2 has submitted that OP-2 is ready to replace the product without any condition and without any costs etc.

8. As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the OPs are directed to replace the product in dispute with fresh warranty or in alternative to refund to the complainant price of product. Accordingly, to settle the dispute between the parties, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to OPs to replace the product in dispute with fresh warranty or in alternative to refund to the complainant price of product. Further, the complainant has been harassed on account of delay in replacement of product or resolve the grievances of complainant, as such, Rs.500/- allowed as litigation in favour of complainant. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must go back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/, the estimate rough amount, with the legal aid account of this Commission.

9. Further, the entire compliance be made within 45 days by OPs from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

28^th of September 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)

Jaswant Singh Dhillon

(Member)