Delhi

North East

CC/314/2022

Mr. Ram Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shahnawaz Khan - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 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. 314/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ram Prakash S/o Lt.  Sh. Karan Singh, R/o B-38, Street No.9, Village Mandoli, BudhVihar, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.               2.	Sh. Shahnawaz Khan, Founder and CEO M/s Abdiel B-1/4, DarshanPuri, Dabri, Palam Road, Near ShahniMandir, New Delhi-110045   Sh. Mohit Kumar S/o Sh. Kisan A-59, Street No. 3, Bank Colony Road, Mandoli Extension, Delhi-110093	Opposite Party No.1             Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:   JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:            DATE OFORDER:

29.07.22 29.05.23 19.09.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that the Complainant purchased an Air Conditioner through Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that he was approached by Opposite Party No.2 who is representative and official of Opposite Party No.2 in march 2022 for availing AMC (annual maintenance charge) and Complainant was given assurance for good service and advised him to enter into an agreement of AMC with Opposite Party No.2 starting from 09.03.22 to 08.03.23 on annual charge of Rs. 1,200/-. On 09.03.22 the representative of Opposite Party visited house of Complainant with a copy of agreement given by Opposite Party No.1 and executed an Agreement/AMC with Complainant and Complainant paid Rs. 1,200/- to representative of Opposite Parties for AMC charges with an assurance that proper and best service would be provided to the Complainant and AC would be maintained and serviced upto the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. The Complainant stated that after execution of said AMC the Complainant made several calls thereafter service engineer of Opposite Parties visited house of Complainant for servicing the said AC and after the service of said AC it stopped working properly as it was not indicating any sound. Thereafter Complainant intimated the service engineer to rectify the fault but service engineer did not pay any heed to request of Complainant and left the house of Complainant. The Complainant made various phone calls to customer care department of Opposite Party and requested to rectify the fault of said AC but instead of resolving the issue Opposite Party cancelled the AMC agreement of Complainant without any permission or consent of Complainant. The Complainant stated that he was in constant touch with customer care department of Opposite Party regarding refund of amount paid by Complainant through phone calls, whatsapp chat/messages but Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of Complainant. The Complainant stated that he had served legal notice to Opposite Party dated 02.06.22 and despite service of the said notice neither the amount was refunded nor the same was replied by Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that he had also sent another notice dated 27.06.22 to Opposite Party however despite service neither the amount was refunded nor the same was replied by the Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party cancelled the AMC agreement and also did not refund the amount of Rs. 1,200/- to Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for the amount of Rs. 1,200/- which has been paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party towards charges for AMC with interest @ 24 % p.a.  He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 24 % p.a. towards mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 17.10.22.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

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

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party No.1 did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,200/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 19.09.23.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)             President