STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO 1096, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

                                          …..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Anita wife of Ashwani Kumar Bansal, resident of House No.391, Phase-I, Mohali.

                     …..Respondent/Complainant           

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the appellant alongwith
    Sh. Satbir Singh, Proprietor of the appellant.

                    Ms. Mahima Bansal, Daughter of the respondent (on VC).

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 22.03.2022, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it partly allowed the Complaint, filed by the complainant, with the following directions: -

“(i) to refund an amount of ₹57,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective date of payment till realization towards two ACs.

(ii)  to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

(iii)   to pay ₹3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

8.    This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. After receipt of the said amount the complainant shall hand over the two ACs to the Opposite Party.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased the air conditioners from the Opposite Party on 19.02.2021. It was stated that at the time of the delivery of the air conditioners the packages were found torn off and on being asked, the agent/owner for replacement, they said the air conditioners are new, only the packaging is destroyed and we take the guarantee of the products. It was further stated that at the time of installation the complainant found inner coil and body damaged of the two air conditioners, but Opposite Party forcefully installed it, saying that there is no problem. It was further stated that after a few days the air conditioners started giving problem of no cooling to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant called the Opposite Party so many times but no action was taken. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party seeking their version of the case, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, proceeded ex-parte on 02.02.2022.
4. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
5. On going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and daughter of the respondent, and have gone through the evidence and pursued records, carefully.
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed , for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
9. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside on the grounds that no warranty card and terms and conditions were ever produced by the respondent/complainant and unless it is proved who was the manufacturer and who gave warranty of the product to the customer, no liability could be fixed on the dealer. Also the manufacturer was not made party to the complaint. He has also alleged that complainant had been dealing with service center of M/s IAPL/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, IAPL House 2/8, West Patel Nagar, Metro Station, New Delhi, but did not make them as party nor made its service center as one of the parties to the complaint. The appellant has also stated that he is a trader and not the manufacturer and thus, has no liability on ground of manufacturing defect. Also the District Commission did not appreciate that no expert evidence from side of the complainant to support its version that Air Conditioners were not working properly. He thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
10. It is evident that the complainant lodged a number of complaints with the Opposite Party regarding repairs of the two Air Conditioners, but the Opposite Parties failed to remove or rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner. Even at the time of installation of the Air Conditioners, the respondent had observed inner coil and body of the Air Conditioners damaged, but they were still installed. Sub-Section (34) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in this regard, is reproduced hereunder:-

“product liability” means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services relating thereto;”

11. Thus, there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party and corrective action was not taken by them to redress the grievance of the respondent for such a long period of time. The respondent was made to suffer and was deprived of proper cooling as required of new Air Conditioner for the entire summer period. The matter has caused lot of harassment to the complainant. In our considered opinion we are of the view that the order of the District Commission deserves to be upheld.
12.  Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.360 of 2022 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is therefore upheld.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

26.10.2022    

                                                                                                                                                                                     Sd/-        

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                         Sd/-          

[PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

GP