| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 435 of 21.11.2017 Decided on: 23.4.2018 Baljit Singh aged 52 years son of S.Jaswant Singh, resident of House No.2292-C, Phase-II, urban Estate, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Seema Electronics, Near Street No.6, Main Road, Jujhar Nagar,Patiala, through its Prop./Manager.
- Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd., EPIP, Phase-II, Thana Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan (H.P.), through its Managing Director.
- M/s K.S.Enterprises, Mir Kundla, Near Cycle Market, Patiala now M/s GTB Electricals Street No.9, Newar Swami Electricals ,Anand Nagar-B, Patiala, authorized service centre of party No.2, through its Prop./partner.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Baljit Singh, complainant in person. Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Authorized Representative of the Opposite parties. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER Sh.Baljit Singh complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) . The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a new glen Chimney Model 6062 from Op no.1 against the invoice No.11656 dated 12.12.2016, for a sum of Rs.11,400 and paid Rs.2000/-as down payment. The remaining amount was to be paid throughinstallments of Rs.1425/-x 8 =11400/-, total amounting to Rs.13,400/-. It is stated that initially he chose model 6075 but thereafter chose the model 6062,hence Rs.10900/- is mentioned on the invoice and on choosing the present model, OP No.1 duly mentioned the particulars of installments on the same invoice. The aforesaid chimney was carrying one year warranty and five years warranty for its motor. After installation of the chimney on 13.12.2016, it started giving lots of problems as it was not sucking the flame properly. The complainant approached and brought this defect of the chimney into the notice of OP No.1.OP No.1 referred the matter to its local service centre i.e. OP No.3.OP No.3 recorded the complaint of the complainant. The employee of Op No.3 visited the house of the complainant, who after checking the chimney told that there was manufacturing defect in it, which could not be resolved.The complainant sent an e-mail to the head office of Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,1-34, DLF Industrial Area, Phase-1,Faridabad on 1.7.2017. On its asking, the complainant sent his full name and address alongwith copy of invoice. On 13.7.2017,technicians from Op No.3 visited the residence of the complainant, who after checking told that the chimney was not working properly. On 14.7.2017, Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Area Manager, Punjab also examined the chimney and found that the same was not working properly. Thereafter the said Area Manager against visited the house of the complainant alongwith head technician namely Sh. Charanjit Singh and after thorough inspection admitted that the problem could not be resolved. Even after changing the motor and blower of the chimney, the defect could not be rectified. The complainant requested the OPs either to replace the said defective chimney or refund the amount of chimney but despite of repeated requests, nothing was done by the OPs. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint, with the prayer for givingdirections to the OPs to replace the chimney or in the alternative pay Rs.13,400/- i.e.cost of chimney alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 12.12.2016 till its realization, to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; to pay Rs.11,000/-as cost of litigation and also to grant any other relief which this Forum may deem fit. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared through the authorized representative of OP No.3 and filed written version. It is admitted that the complainant purchased Glen chimney model GL 6075 on installments but later requested Op No.1 to get it changed with the other model GL 6062-1000m3/hr 60cm. It is also admitted that the chimney covered one year standard warranty and LTW warranty on terms and conditions mentioned in warranty card. It is admitted that after purchase of the said chimney, the complainant complained about the low suction problem with the chimney and a technician visited the residence of the complainant to check the chimney, who found that the chimney was working satisfactorily as per its capacity. The technician observed that the size of the gas stove as compared to thechimney was big , leaving the extreme burners, out of the suction area of the chimney. This fact was brought into the notice of the complainant by the area manager and the technician, at the time of visiting his house. They offered the customer to get the chimney upgraded to higher suction and bigger size against the rate difference between the model available and the new model, but he did not agree. The OPs are still ready to replace the base unit of 1000m3 with 1250m3 without glass, baffle filters and hood at Rs.5000/-. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his duly sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C24 and closed the evidence. The representative of the OPs tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence of the OPs. We have heard the complainant, the representative of the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully. Ex.C1 is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased Glen Chimney from Op no.1 on 12.12.2016, for a sum of Rs.10,900/-.It is the case of the complainant that the said chimney was not sucking the flame properly. Exs.C7 to C23, are the e-mails exchanged between the complainant and the OPs from 1.7.2017 to 23.8.2017.The technician of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant and tried to rectify the problem but the problem could not be rectified. The problem occurred during the warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same. Today, during the course of arguments, the authorizedrepresentative of the OPs submitted that the OPs are ready to replace the product in question of 1000m3 with the product ofhigher range i.e.1250m3 on the payment of the differential amount i.e. Rs.5000/-, which the complainant was not ready to pay. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to replace the chimney with a new one of the same make and capacity i.e. 1000m3 with requisite warranty. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/-as compensation for the harassment underwent by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2500/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED: 23.4.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
