DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No. 283/2014

Shri Khosmendir Singh Gahunia

S/o Shri Bhag Singh

R/o J-110, NDSE Part-I

New Delhi-110049

….Complainant

Versus

Tru Life Appliances Mfg. Co.

Through its partners

1. Arun Chugh
2. Avinash Chugh

286, Tihar Village, New Delhi -110018

Vishnu Sanitary & Hardware Store

C-9, South Extension-I (Housing Society)

Near Dharam Bhavan, New Delhi-110049

Through its Proprietor – Shri Rakesh Kumar

       ….Opposite Parties

 Date of Institution    : 21.07.2014       

 Date of Order            :15.06.2022      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

Facts of the case as pleaded by the Complainant are :-

1.      Complainant, Shri K S Gahunia purchased three geysers on 10.2.2012 from Vishnu Sanitary and Hardware Store (OP-2) , manufactured by Tru Life Appliances Mfg. Co. (OP-1). The same were installed in the month of March, after completing the painting of bathrooms as the house was being renovated.

2.      It is stated that when the boxes of the geysers were opened there were no warranty cards inside the boxes accompanying the three geysers.  This was immediately conveyed to the dealer and the dealer promised to send three warranty cards after duly signing them and putting the dealer’s stamp.  All the three geysers remained unused since the geysers  were installed in the month of March and summer season followed. Thereafter, the geysers could only be used in November 2012 with the on set of winter season.  It is stated that after the repairs of the entire house, complainant requested OP-2 to compile the bills and submit  the total amount due for the material provided for renovation. Complainant again requested to send warranty cards. It is next stated that the total amount of bill, including three geysers alongwith taxes was paid by the complainant.

3.      Complainant thereafter, demanded proper receipt for geysers and a separate receipt  was issued  by OP-2 wherein only one geyser was mentioned. Upon receiving the same complainant called the dealer and asked him to rectify the same and also demanded the warranty card.  The receipt was sent back but only the quantity/number of geysers was corrected but the amount remained uncorrected.  This was again protested and the dealer promised to send another receipt for two geysers separately but in vain. Despite numerous requests OP-2 failed to issue a proper receipt of geysers and other material purchased and also did not provide the three warranty cards. 

4.      It is stated that the first geyser stopped functioning on 6.12.2013, the technician who  came for repairs told the complainant that  the geyser has stopped functioning due to poor quality element put inside the geysers which got burnt.  Thereafter, the second geyser and third geyser also stopped functioning on 12.12.2013 and 22.12.2013 respectively for the same reasons.  It is stated that in the second geyser it was found that the thermostat was faulty.  It is stated that the first geyser again broke down on 27.12.2013 due to poor quality of element and after three days the geyser exploded due to short circuit.  Complainant got tired and fed up of the repeated breakdown of the geysers therefore he demanded OP-1 and OP- 2 to take back the defective substandard geysers and refund the money back, but in vain. Thereafter, complainant purchased two water heaters from Ambha Electric Store on 16.01.14 and 25.01.14 by paying Rs 5,700/- for each towards consideration. 

5.      Thus, aggrieved complainant approached this Commission with prayers to direct OP to refund the amount paid as cost price of the three geysers i.e. Rs.18,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Additionally it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,80,000/-on account of mental torture, agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant. It is also prayed that both the OPs be penalised to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and to deposit the same in legal cell or any other funds which the Commission may deem fit for duping/misleading and exploiting the innocent customers. Further it is prayed that OPs be directed to publish/advertise in two leading newspapers of English and Hindi at their own cost  to call upon other customers  who had faced similar problem in their Geysers .It is also prayed that cost of litigation be awarded in favour of the complainant.

6.      OP-1 & OP- 2 have jointly filed their written statement. OPs have taken preliminary objection stating that the complainant is guilty of concealment and suppression of facts as the complainant has forged the documents by over-writing on the documents. It is stated that in various documents filed by the complainant the amount shown has been forged and inflated by the complainant , therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.OP-1 &OP- 2 have vehemently denied that complainant paid an amount of Rs. 18,500/- to OP-2 towards the price of three geysers instead it is submitted that price of one geyser is mentioned in the bill dated 10.2.2013 which is Rs.3,500/- therefore, cost of three geysers cannot be Rs.18,500/- as alleged by the complainant.

7.      The averments made by the complainant regarding the warranty card and correction of the receipt by OP-2 is denied . However, it is submitted that as and when the complainant asked for technician it was sent to his house and geysers were repaired.  It is next stated that there was no question of replacement of the element of the second geyser as it was working properly. It is denied that the geysers were of sub-standard quality or not according to ISI standard. It is next stated that OP-2 upon complaint sent an  electrician  to the complainant’s house to repair the geyser, however, it was found that there was no defect in the geyser rather there was defect in the electricity plugs and no element of third geyser was burnt as alleged.  OP-2 submits that there were minor faults in the geysers which were repaired by the technicians. It is stated that the complainant appears to be a habitual litigant who extracts money from businessmen.

8.      Denying the averments made by the Complainant ,OPs request for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

09.    Rejoinder to WS of OP-1 & OP-2 has been filed.  Complainant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, the proprietor of OP-2 has filed their evidence. Written arguments on behalf of parties are on record. Submissions made by the complainant are heard and material placed on record is perused.

10.    Complainant in support of his case has filed various bills received from OP-2. Invoice of the geysers annexed as Annexure-B is appended at page 36 of the complaint.  Two invoices from Ambha Electric Store has been filed by complainant as Annexure-C.

11.    Complainant by way of present complaint has raised larger issues which go beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. We shall therefore confine ourselves to consumer dispute regarding the defective  water heaters between the parties.

12.    On scrutiny of Annexure-B it is noticed that quantity of goods has been over written. It seems that number one has been over written as number three.  It is not clear whether the price of the one geyser is Rs.3,500/- or the cost of  three geysers is Rs.3,500/-.  However, a Kuccha bill placed at page 34 of the complaint shows that three geysers of 25 litres were purchased at Rs.18,500/- from OP-2.

13.    Kuccha bills have been filed by the Complainant wherein it is proved that Complainant due to renovation was purchasing material/ products from OP-2. In the Kuccha bill at page No.34 it shows that  the Complainant purchased three geysers of 25 litres for Rs.18,500/- However, looking  at the bills filed by the Complainant it is seen that there is overwriting on many bills which creates doubt in our minds. There is a Pucca bill dated 10.02.2013 filed as Annexure-P by the Complainant wherein the number of geysers have been overwritten and the price shown is that Rs.3,500/- and including VAT, price of the geyser is valued at Rs. 3,938/-. OP has not denied the fact that geysers supplied by OP were repaired by the technician time and again, however, in the absence of any job sheet filed by the Complainant the Complainant’s version of  repeated breakdown of the water heaters cannot be taken as true.

14.    However, Complainant claims to have purchased two new geysers. The Pucca bills of Ambha Electric Store dated 16.01.2014 and 25.01.2014 show that two 25 litre geysers were purchased by the Complainant at Rs.5,700/- each. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that out of three water heaters purchased from OP-2, two water heaters were faulty and defective which were replaced by the Complainant. The said water heaters were purchased within one year of the purchase and alleged repair by OP-2, of the three water heaters.

15.    In view of the same, we conclude that two geysers were faulty and Complainant had to purchase two water heaters which could not be repaired and rectified. We hold OP to be deficient in service only to the extent and direct OP to pay the price of two water heaters i.e Rs.11,400/- with interest @6% from the date of  purchase on 16.01.2014 within three months, failing which OP shall pay Rs. 11,400/- @9% till realisation.

          File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.