Punjab

Sangrur

CC/34/2016

Jasvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivam Interiors - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Dhindsa

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 34                                                                                          

                                                                  Instituted on:  04.01.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    19.09.2016

 

Jasvir Singh aged 41 son of Sarwan Singh resident of village  Nandgarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

1.     Shivam Interiors, near Civil Hospital , Sangrur road, Dhuri, through its proprietor Umang Garg.

 

2.(A)  Rakshan Home Styles 812 MIE part-A, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar ( Haryana).

(b)      Firstech Solutions Pvt. Limited Plot no.1412-13, M.I.E.Part-B Bahadyrgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

 

3.       Kitchen Care, Kishan Nagar, Lower Mall, Near British School, Patiala, through its proprietor Sanjay Mittal.

 

4.       Sonu Hardware and Paint Store, Partap Nagar Road sunami Gate Sangrur through its Proprietor.   

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri S.S.Dhindsa Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY No.1:     Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate                   

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.2&3 :     Exparte.                     

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY No.4 :    Shri Davinder Singh, Advocate                    

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jasvir Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a chimney of Peacock Home Appliances Pvt. Limited and other material for his kitchen on 02.10.2013  vide bill number 146 for an amount of Rs.28000/- from the OP No.1 out of which costs of the chimney is Rs.12000/-.  The said chimney was installed on 2.1.2014 by OP No.3  and filled the warranty card on the spot. The said chimney started giving some troubles and was not working properly then the complainant approached OP No.1  who advised to call  mobile number 98101-35389 at Patiala. Thereafter the complainant contacted two other mobile numbers but OPs flatly refused to provide any service or to replace the product.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the chimney or to refund the price of chimney of Rs.12,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             As per record, OPs number 2 and 3  were proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, the purchase of chimney in question is admitted.  It has been stated that the at the time of selling the said products, the complainant has specifically disclosed that the warranty for whatever period was/is from the manufacturers and the distributor of the peacock company is Sony Hardware and Paint Store, Partap Nagar Road Sunami Gate, Sangrur and the service  regarding installation etc. would be provided by the said distributor on behalf of the company. The OP No.1 has no concern with the warranty of the chimney in question.  The OP number 1 on asking the complainant filled the same on 02.01.2014 as there was/is good relations between the complainant and the OP No.1. The complainant never approached the OP No.1 about alleged defect  of the chimney. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1.

4.             In reply filed by the OP no.4,  legal objection on the ground of maintainability has been taken up. At the time of selling the said chimney  to the complainant, it has been specifically disclosed that the warranty  for whatever period was/is from the manufacturers and  the OP No.4 would have nothing to be done with the warranty  of the product. If the chimney in dispute has any problem  as alleged by the complainant  then the OP no.2 the manufacturer is sole responsible  for the same as the warranty was /is from the OP no.2.

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered document Ex.OP1/1, Ex.OP4/1 and closed evidence.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record we find that the complainant got  installed the chimney in question in the kitchen  on 02/01/2014 as per document Ex.C-4 which is a warranty card.  As per this document the warranty was applicable " for a period  of 24 months from the date of purchase  and all decorative hood  motor carries five year warranty whereas life time warranted products are for five years". So, as the chimney started giving trouble in July 2014 so the chimney in question is under the warranty as per terms and conditions mentioned in document Ex.C-4 which is duly countersigned by the OP No.1.

7.             The complainant in support of his version has placed on record document Ex.C-2 which is an affidavit of the expert who had submitted that the non-sucking of smoke by the chimney is due to  manufacturing defect. We have also gone through the evidence of the OP No.1 and in the document Ex.OP1/1the OP no.1  has submitted that"  if the chimney in dispute has any problem as alleged by the complainant, then  the opposite party number 2  the manufacturer is sole  responsible for the same  as the warranty was/is  from the OP no.2". From the perusal of this document we find that the OP No.1 had not denied having advised the complainant to lodge the complaint at Patiala on mobile number 98101-35389, 92127-31101 and 92121-48917. So, this all shows that the OP No.1 was aware of the defect and had not taken up the matter with the manufacturer and other authorized centre for removing the defect of the chimney. The OP No.4 has also taken the plea that "if the chimney in dispute has any problem as alleged by the complainant then the OP No.2 the manufacturer is sole responsible for the same." So, it seems that OP no.1 and OP No.4 has taken the plea that the manufacturer which is exparte in the present  complaint is responsible  to remove or replace the chimney of the complainant. We have also gone through  documents Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-12  which are photographs of the house of the complainant and we find the same are   and the interior look of the house is blackish.

8.             So, keeping in view of the facts mentioned above, we find that the OPs are deficient in service and accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally  to replace the chimney or to refund the price amount of chimney  of Rs.12000/-  along with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. We further direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the amount of compensation, mental tension and litigation expenses.     

 

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                September 19, 2016

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)           ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                      

Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-