Delhi

North East

CC/259/2016

Azeem Ahmed - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANSUI INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 259/16

In the matter of:

	Sh Azeem Ahmad S/o Late Sh Shakeel Ahmad R/o H.No. E-203, Gali No. 7 Near Vivek Model Public School Subhash Mohalla , North Ghonda Delhi-110053		Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.         3.	M/s. Sansui India Ltd. Plot No. 296, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2, Gurgaon-122016   M/s WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd Ozone Manay Tech, Park No. 56/18 B-Block, 9th floor, Garvebhav Ipalta, Hosur Road, Bangaluru   Sansui Service Centre 45, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III, New Delhi-1100020		Opposite Parties
		DATE OF INSTITUTION:		03.10.2016
		DATE OF DECISION      :		21.03.2017

 

N.K. Sharma, President

 

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant thereby alleging that he has purchased a Split Air-conditioner 1.0 T Model VM35781 manufactured by Sansui i.e. OP1 from OP2 for Rs. 20,990/- on 26.05.2016. Just within 04 months the Air Conditioner became faulty and since then it is not functioning at all. The said Air conditioner worked normally just for a few days from 26.05.2016 to 21.09.2016 and since 21.09.2016 the AC is not working properly and it automatically shut down after running 10 minutes and every time the complainant has to change MCB and switch on again and again to start the AC, which causes a lot of discomfort to the complainant. The AC used to trips normally 20-25 times in a night which caused the complainant to shut down the AC, which was not the purpose for purchasing the AC. Complaint to this effect was made to OP1 & OP3 but they did not respond. Complainant also lodged a complaint vide No. BEL2209160381 with OP1 but no one visited and repaired the AC in question. The AC is under warranty of 5 years. Pleading that OPs have sold faulty Air-conditioner to complainant having manufacturing defect and are deficient in service, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 20,900/- the cost of the Air-conditioner with interest thereon @18% per annum from the date of purchase  with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and Rs. 21,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. All the OPs were served on 13.10.2016. OP2 by filing its reply denied all the allegations of the complainant. OP2 further states that being manufacturer / warranty provider, the only person responsible for any service under warranty are OP1 or its authorized service centre i.e. OP3 OP2 further states that he is only a reseller of the goods manufactured and produced by the OP1. OP1 in its reply admits that it received two complaints only in its service centre on dated 08.06.2016 & 22.09.2016 which were duly attended by its service engineer whose offer to repair the same was refused by the complainant. There is no denial of service on behalf of OP1 & OP3 but it is the complainant himself not ready to get the product repaired.
3. Complainant by filing its rejoinder in reply of OP2 states that OP2 cannot escape from its liability by just saying that it is only the seller of the product and the OP2 is just shifting the liability on the OP3. It is further submitted by complainant in its rejoinder that all the OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. In rejoinder filed by complainant in reply of OP1 & OP3, complainant deny the allegation of OP1 & OP3 that complainant refused to get the product repaired from service engineer of the company.
4. Complainant and OP2 filed their respective evidences which OP1 & OP3, even after sufficient opportunities failed to file. Hence, their opportunity to file the same was closed vide order dated 23.01.2017.
5. Heard and perused the documents.
6. As per the documents placed on record it is established that complainant purchased 1.0 Ton Sansui Split Air-conditioner from OP-2 for Rs. 20,990/-, wherein defect started within few months, complaint whereof was duly lodged with OP1 which fact is acknowledged by OP1 in its reply. Fact of admitted visit of OPs’ engineer and offer to repair is sufficient proof of the fact that the product was under warranty policy on defect. Besides Warranty card, as placed on record by complainant also confirms this fact. OP1 & OP3 did not produce any proof in support of their contention that they made any attempt to redress the grievance of the complainant. Due to failure of both OP1 & OP3 to file evidence despite sufficient opportunities to them evidence of complainant could not be controverted. Hence, the allegations made by complainant against OP1 & OP3 are deemed to be true where OP2 in its evidence specially acknowledges manufacturing defect. Sale where of  are unfair trade practice.  
7. In the fact and circumstances aforesaid we hold all the OPs guilty jointly and severally for selling defective Air-conditioner to complainant and for deficiency in service. Therefore, we direct all the OPs to  jointly and severally.

1. refund entire cost of the Air-conditioner being Rs. 20,900/-;  and
2. pay compensation for harassment of Rs. 10,000/-; and
3. Litigation cost of Rs. 3,300/-.

8. The above amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of order of this Forum, failing which cost of the air- conditioner shall have interest thereon @18% p.a. w.e.f. 26.05.2016 the date of purchase till final payment as per order.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10. File be consigned to record room.
11. Announced on 21.03.2017 

 

(N.K.Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member