Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/339/2016

Brig. T.S. Dhillon, VSM (Retd) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaquar Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/339/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	13/05/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	23/01/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Brig. T.S. Dhillon, VSM (Retd.), S/o Late Gobinder Singh Dhillon, R/o House No. 1033, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh – 160036.

 

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

Jaguar Co. Pvt. Limited, Represented by Regional Office, SCO 52-53, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Regional Manager.

 

……… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH.S.S. PANESAR              PRESIDENT

                MRS.SURJEET KAUR          MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP	:	Sh. Bhupender Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. M.S. Longia, Advocate.

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant had purchased four shower enclosures of Jaguar Company for his new house, from one of its Dealer – M/s Aggarwal Sales Corp. SCO 148, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, for a total consideration of Rs.1,08,300/-. It has been averred that out of the aforesaid four enclosures, three enclosures were fitted by the Company Technicians, while one was still lying in a packet state. It has been alleged that on 19.4.2016, one panel of the Shower enclosure had burst at 1.00 A.M. when the Complainant was sleeping. The Complainant immediately reported the matter to the Opposite Party, upon which two Technicians visited the site and took measurements and pictures. Thereafter, when the Opposite Party did nothing to resolve the issue, the Complainant sent e-mails to their Corporate Office and also registered Complaint on the company’s website, upon which the Complainant was informed that he would have to pay for replacement. The Complainant has alleged that the exploded panel has not been replaced until the filing of the present Complaint, despite his repeated endeavours. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the Shower Enclosure was made of glass and was breakable item and warranty does not cover glass breakage or coating of glass. This condition was specifically mentioned in the warranty certificate which has not been annexed by the Complainant. It has been asserted that the glass was broken by some external force or pressure. It has been asserted that upon consistent repeated request of the Complainant to replace the panel free of cost, the matter was put up before the higher officers and after getting their approval, the panel was replaced on 23.05.2016, after charging an amount of Rs.3938/- from the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned proxy Counsel for Opposite Party and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed by the Complainant. 

 

7.      Admittedly, the panel was replaced on 23.05.2016 by the Opposite Party, after charging an amount of Rs.3938/- from the Complainant. It is pertinent to add here that the Shower Enclosure in question is carrying a warranty of 05 years. The said fact is apparent from a bare perusal of Annexure R-1 annexed by the Opposite Party with its reply, relevant excerpt of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

Warranty Description	Business Division	Business Entity	Name of the Jaguar Products or parts	Warranty Period
Warranty against failure arising through faulty designs material or workmanship as mentioned below from the date of purchase, subject to certain terms and conditions specified in the warranty certificate	Shower Enclosures	Jaguar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Trading Division)	Jaguar Glass Enclosures	5 years

 

Although the Opposite Party in its written reply has taken a categorical stand that the warranty does not cover glass breakage, yet in its own admission, the Opposite Party in Para 7 of its reply has maintained that upon consistent repeated request of the Complainant to replace the panel free of cost, the matter was taken up with the Higher Officers and after getting their approval, the panel was replaced on 23.05.2016, but instead of Rs.10,686/- (Market Price of Panel), only an amount of Rs.3938/- was charged from the Complainant. Hence, this Forum is not impressed with the stand of the Opposite Party that the warranty does not cover the glass breakage. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in charging an amount of Rs.3938/- from the Complainant, during the warranty period of the Shower Enclosure, is totally unjustified and amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence in unfair trade practice.

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.3,938/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [c] above.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23^rd January, 2017                                         Sd/-                                       

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”