Delhi

East Delhi

CC/627/2015

kuljeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 627/15

Shri. KULJEET MEHRA

S/O SHRI GURDEEP SINGH

R/O HOUSE NO. 123, DOUBLE STOREY

WELCOME SEELAMPUR III

DELHI 110053

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

•  

 

1. VIJAY SALES

A 18, SWASTHIYA VIHAR, VIKAS MARG

DELHI.

 

2. SYMPHONY LIMITED

SAMUYA BAKERI CIRCLE, NARANGPURA

59978557656.  
80597472.  

 

                                                                                                                        ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.08.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 07.03.2017

Judgment Passed on: 17.03.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complaint Shri Kuljeet Mehra against Vijay sales-OP-1 the retailer and Symphony Ltd. OP-2 the manufacturer, with allegations of deficiency in service, thus praying for refund of the cost of Air Cooler i.e. Rs. 9,500/-, compensation for mental pain & agony Rs. 100,000/- and miscellaneous expenses incurred by the complainant to visit OP-1.
2. Briefly stated facts are that on 20/05/2015, the complainant had purchased one Symphony air cooler Diet 50 L vide invoice bearing no. 304-DVM05-15RSI 603 for Rs.9,500/-. At the time of sales the complainant was assured about the durability and quality of the product manufactured by OP-2 by the executive of OP-1. The complainant started facing problems with the functioning of the cooler within a week of purchase. OP-1 was informed by the complainant, who refused to address the complaint of the complainant, and asked him to register his complaint with OP-2, where his complaint was registered vide complaint no. NDSV 26E 15012. Subsequent to the complainant an engineer of OP-2 inspected the Air Cooler and informed the complainant that there was problem with the part of the air cooler, which was currently unavailable. Despite several requests to OP-2 the air cooler was temporarily repaired with assurance to change the defective part as & when available. OP-2 neither repaired nor replaced the defective product. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the OPs, the complainant filed this complaint and prayed for refund of Rs.9,500/- cost of cooler, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for harassment,  mental pain and agony.
3. Complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 20/05/2015, legal notice dated 03/07/2015 to OPs with the complaint.
4. Reply was filed on behalf of OP-1 where they took the plea that as they were the dealer, no liability could be fastened on them as they had informed the manufacturer i.e. OP-2 about the defect.
5. As OP-2 did not put appearance, they were proceeded ex-parte.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant & OP-1. Complainant examined himself who reiterated the contents of the complaint.
7. Reliance was placed on Ex CW1/A- Retail invoice, ExCW1/B & C- Legal notice & copy of registered Acknowledgement due respectively, Ex CW1/D is the inspection report by independent electrician.
8. Sh. Sonu Kumar Singh, Authorized representative was examined on behalf of OP-1 where they stated that OP-1 being a dealer has forwarded the complaint to OP-2  and stated that the air cooler was suffering from manufacturing defect.
9. We have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has placed on record the inspection report dated 29/09/2015 independent electrician who has stated the PCB board of the cooler was not working. This is further substantiated in evidence of OP-1, where its AR has stated that the cooler had manufacturing defect. Thus, the complainant has been successful in proving that the air cooler had manufacturing defect. The conduct of OP-2 in selling a defective product and not removing the defects thereafter amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Thus, the present complaint is allowed and OP-2 is directed to refund the cost of the air cooler i.e. Rs.9,500/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing. We also award Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain, as it will act as a deterrent on OP-2 from indulging in practice of selling defective goods. If the said order is not complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order then OP-2 shall be liable to pay 9% interest on Rs.14,500/- (9,500+5,000) from the date of filing this complaint.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(P.N. TIWARI)                                                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

   MEMBER                                                                                                      MEMBER

 

                                                     (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                             PRESIDENT