Delhi

North East

CC/378/2022

Mohd. Nazir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Service Wonder Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 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. 378/22

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mohd. Nazir S/o Sh. Acchan Khan R/o ST. No.1, Noor- e-Elahi Near Barewi Masjid North Ghonda, Delhi-110053		Complainant
		Versus
		Service wonder Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Director Name – Jatin Karla F 54 3rd Floor Madhu Vihar New Guruduara Saraswati Appartment        Delhi-110092   Also at:- 62 Vijay Block Laxmi Nagar, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 50, Delhi-110092		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		27.09.22 05.06.23 16.11.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party which is Service wonder Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that on 12.07.20 Complainant had taken AMC for extended 3 years warranty from Opposite Party for his Panasonic AC product service no. 0052601801, product Model No. CU KC 185KY31.It is stated that the Opposite Party charged Rs. 5,600/- and issued Extended warrantyAMC certificate no. 962.The Complainant first complained about cooling of AC and they sent engineer who filled gas in AC but problem of cooling in AC was not rectified. The Complainant has again complained about the problem. The Complainant had contacted service manager of Opposite Party and the engineer was sent to repair the AC but AC could not be repaired by that engineer. The Complainant contacted Opposite Party many times but no satisfactory response was received by Complainant. The Complainantasked Opposite Party to refund money of AMC of said AC but all in vain. The Complainant stated that he had lodged complaint many times but his problem was not resolved. Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 01.02.23.

Ex-Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed hisevidence by way of affidavit wherein he had supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant in person and also perused the file.The case of the Complainant is that Complainant had taken AMC for extended 3 years warranty from Opposite Party for his Panasonic AC and paid Rs. 5,600/-. It is alleged that he had complained many times and representative of the Opposite Party visited but could not repair the AC. It is stated that the Opposite Party filled gas also but cooling issue still remained. The Complainant contacted Opposite Party many times but no satisfactory response was received by Complainant. The Complainant asked Opposite Party to refund money of AMC of said AC but the amount was not refunded.
5. We have considered the contentions of the Complainant and also perused the record of the file. The Complainant has produced the copy of Extended warranty AMC certificate no. 962. On perusal of said document, it is observed that the Complainant has paid Rs. 5,600/-. The allegation of the Complainant is that there was some problem with the cooling of the subject AC and the same was not rectified by the Opposite Party. We note that at the back side of the Extended warranty AMC certificate no. 962, it is written that the in case of Split Air conditioner, thermostat is also covered with some other parts under the warranty which shows that the Opposite Party was under obligation  to rectify the cooling issue under the said warranty. The contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite party failed to repair AC, hence, committed deficiency of service.\
6. It is to be noted here that Opposite party has not put in appearance in spite of notice and failed to file its version, hence, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the Complainant which is testified on oath.
7. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the Complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Party, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party which is Service wonder Electronics Pvt. Ltd., has been deficient in services by not providing the satisfactory services to the Complainant by not repairing the Air conditioner in question.
8. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party i.e. Service Wonder Electronics Pvt. Ltd to refund to the Complainant Rs. 5,600/- the cost of the AMC with interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its recovery.The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
9. Order announced on 16.11.23.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)                   Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President