Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/72/2018

Krishan Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

vijay Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Driya Singh

22 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 72 of 2018

                  Date of Institution             : 11.05.2018

                                                           Date of Decision               : 22.03.2024

 

 

Krishan Kumar Verma son of Sh. Keso Ram R/o Bank Colony, Near Mini Bye Pass, Bhiwani,Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Vijay Electronics Radhika Complex, Opp. K.M. Public School, Hansi Road Bhiwani Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Partner/authorized signatory.

 

2. Bajrang Cooling Center (Authorized Service Center) Jain Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized signatory.

 

3. Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., at 1^st Floor, Peari Tower, Plot NO.51, Sector-32, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001 through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized signatory.

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Dariya Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Ankur Garg, Advocate for OP No.3.

OP No.2 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainant purchased an air conditioner make Carrier company from OP No.1 on 08.05.2017 in a sum of Rs.42,500/- alongwith V-Guard Stabilizer having cost of Rs.4500/-. As per complainant, the AC was having one year warranty for its parts and five years warranty for replacement of compressor from the date of purchase. It is alleged that the AC became defective during its warranty period. So, complainant approached OP No.1 who suggested to contact OPNo.2-authroized service center. OP No.2 repaired the AC but every time, it was not working properly. Lastly, on 31.03.2018, OP No.2 stated that the AC is having some manufacturing defect and the same is not repairable. Complainant approached the Ops for its replacement but they flatly refused. Complainant made complaints to the customer care vide transaction No.132466150 but the Ops did not take any action. Ultimately, legal notice dated 16.04.2018 was served upon the Ops but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss. In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions to Ops to replace the defective AC with new one, further to pay Rs.50,000/- towards harassment suffered by complainant. Any other relief, to which this Commission deem fit has also been sought.

2.                 Notices were served upon the OPs. OP No.2 did not appear despite  registered notice, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.04.2019.

3.                 OP No.1 filed written statement admitting that the products were purchased by complainant from it in a total sum of Rs.47,000/- but there was no defect in the AC. However, in case of any defect, OPs No. 2 & 3 being service center and manufacturing company, respectively, are responsible for its repair or replacement within warranty period.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                 OP No.3 filed its written statement taking preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, complaint being false and frivolous and that complainant is not consumer etc. On merits, it is stated that on 31.03.2018 complainant raised the issue and the OP without any undue or unreasonable delay, resolved the same viz. filled the gas and AC was working properly.  It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the AC as alleged.  It is urged that complainant was aware that one year standard warranty is going to expire then he again raised the issue, however, on checking, the AC was working alright and no issue was found and as soon as warranty period expired, the present complaint was filed by complainant.  As such, the answering OP denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence.

6.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Manish Tuteja as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex. R1/2 and closed the evidence.

7.                 Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Sumit Parshant, Manager (Legal) as Ex. OP-1 alongwith documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.

8.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.

9.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the air conditioner so purchased him did not work properly but despite approaching the OPs many times, they did not rectify the defect properly. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the AC was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the OPs as such, the Ops were liable to replace the AC.  The counsel has also prayed for compensation for harassment and other expenses.

10.               On the other side, learned counsels  for OPs denied the factum of any complaint in the AC. Learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that the product was sold by it but it is not liable for any warranty or otherwise. The counsels vehemently argued for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

11.               From purchase bill (Ex. R1/1) it is evident that the complainant purchased the AC in question in a sum of Rs.42,500/- on 08.05.2017. From complaint/job sheet dated 31.03.2018 and text message(s) (Annexure C-4), it is clear that the product became defective within one year of its purchase. Admittedly, the product was having general warranty of one year.  The factum of repair is also proved by the document(s) placed on record by OP as Ex. OP-5. Further, to strengthen his case, complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A which corroborates the version of complainant.

12.                   In view of the above, we have observed that the air conditioner was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the Ops despite repeated repairs. Accordingly, the OP No.3 was negligent, deficient in providing proper services to the complainant which dragged the complainant into this unwarranted litigation.  So, complainant must have suffered monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP No.3 being manufacturer of the product is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To replace the AC in question with new one of the same model and if not available then to replace with higher model, subject to return of the defective air conditioner by complainant to the OP No.3 at their service center at Bhiwani.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP No.3 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.    

Announced.

Dated:22.03.2024.