Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/330

VED PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

        CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 21.05.2015

Complaint Case. No. 330/15                                               Date of order:    17.09.2018

IN  MATTER OF

 

Ved Prakash, B-7, Officers Colony, Central Jail Tihar, Hari Nagar, New Delhi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Complainant

VERSUS

 

Vijay Sales, Block B-1, Near Amar Leela Hospital, Janak Puri, New Delhi

                                                                                                                       

Opposite party-1

 

Sharp Air, Plot no. A-9, 3^rd Floor, BITS Tower, Sector-125, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, New Delhi

                                                           

                                                                                                                        Opposite party-2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                    ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        The present complaint is filed u/s 12 of the CPA by the above named complainant against Ops for deficiency in service. Briefly the facts stated by the complainant for disposal of the complaint are that he purchased one AC of make and model Sharp IFAIBRT white 02 star 1.5 Tonne W from OP-1 for sale consideration Rs. 17,500/- and he also gave his old AC to OP-1 for which the OP-1 had assessed value of Rs. 4,000/- thus making the total value of AC as Rs. 21500/-. The product in dispute was not working properly from date of installation and the complaint was lodged on 29.04.2015 vide complaint no. NDSC15166894 to OP-1 and again reminder was given on 09.05.2015. The mechanic/ engineer visited the residence of complainant but was unable to remove the fault. The AC under dispute was not working properly and had no cooling effect. Thus due to deficiency in service on part of OPs the complainant had to suffer. Hence the present complaint for directions to OP-1 to replace the defective AC and install the new AC and also compensation on account of poor after sale services and harassment.      

Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs. The OP-1 filed reply to the complainant asserting that the complainant had suppressed material facts and had not approached the Forum with clean hands and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. They further alleged that the OP-1 is only the dealer of OP-2 who is manufacturer and the complaint received from the complainant was forwarded to OP-2 and it was the liability of manufacturer to remove the defects in the product and redress the grievance of the complainant and it again prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The OP-2 failed to appear despite notice and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2015. 

When the parties were asked to lead evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit dated 18.07.2016 reiterating the facts of the complaint. He also relied on copy of invoice dated 11.10.2014. The op-1 was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2016 for non appearance.

  We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The version of the complainant which is stated on affidavit has remained unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is admitted by the OP-1 that the complaint was lodged by  the complainant which was forwarded to OP-2. Nevertheless the grievance of the complainant was not redressed by the OPs. The OP-1 cannot wriggle out on the mere ground that he is a dealer and has no liability and only the manufacturer has the liability to redress the grievance of the complainant.

From the perusal of the affidavit it reveals that the complainant for the first time lodged the complaint with oP-1 on 29.04.2015 after approximate six months of purchase of the disputed AC. He also sent reminder to redress his grievance on 09.05.2015 but to no effect and OPs still failed to remove the fault. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that ops-1 and 2 failed to rectify the AC in dispute and render proper after- sale service to the complainant.  Hence ops-1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs. 15,000/- depreciated amount of the AC as the complainant has already used AC for approximately 6 months satisfactorily and also to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for   mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

In light of above discussion and observation we direct the OPs-1 and 2 to jointly and severally to refund sum of Rs. 15,000/- depreciated amount of AC and Rs. 2000/- compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.     

Order pronounced on :-

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              (K.S. MOHI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                              PRESIDENT