Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/46/2022

M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jatinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Arora Adv.

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/46/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	29/04/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	11/10/2022

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

….Appellant

Vs.

 

1]     Jatinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Mohinder Singh, Resident of H.No. 3081, Ground Floor, New Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

2]     M/s Blue Star Limited, Adarsh Mall, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

                RAJESH K. ARYA                           MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH                      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocate for Appellant.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
	:	Sh. Harinder Singh Gill, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/64/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	19/05/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	11/10/2022

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Blue Star Limited, through its Authorized Representative Mr. Chetan Sharma, Adarsh Mall, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

 

….Appellant

 

Vs.

 

 

1]     Jatinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Mohinder Singh, Resident of H.No. 3081, Ground Floor, New Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

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

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

                RAJESH K. ARYA                           MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH                      MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Harinder Singh Gill, Advocate for Appellant.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
	:	Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. A/46/2022 filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 (M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Limited) and Cross Appeal i.e. A/64/2022 filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 (M/s Blue Star Limited), against the order dated 25.03.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘Ld. Lower Commission), vide which it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/370/2021, filed by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 (Jatinder Singh), qua Appellants/Opposite Parties, by passing the following order: -

“8.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs. Accordingly, the Complaint is allowed against them. The OPs are directed as under: -

[a]      To refund an amount of Rs.54,000/- being the invoice price of the product in question, to the Complainant.

[b]     To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant as compository compensation for causing her mental and physical harassment for deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses. 

9.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall pay an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, apart from the above reliefs.

 

 

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that these appeals can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Respondent/Complainant that he purchased AC make Blue Star (2 Ton) vide invoice dated 15.04.2021 for Rs.54,000/-, having one year warranty from Appellant/ OP No.1 (M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd.), manufactured by OP NO.2 M/s Blue Star Ltd. (Appellant in cross appeal), by availing loan from ICICI Bank. On the date of its installation i.e. 16.04.2021, the AC was found to be defective one and the Engineer tried to locate the defect but to no effect. On the next day i.e. 17.04.2021, the team of the engineers visited the Respondent/ Complainant’s house and tried to remove the defect, but unable to start the AC and left the premises by stating the parts were not available and replace it within 1-2 days. On repeated requests made through whatsapp, the Engineers replaced some parts of the AC, but unable to start the same.  It was further averred that despite his repeated requests made through whatsapp, the OPs failed to redress his grievance and finally, on 24.05.2021 he requested them either to refund the money or to replace the AC with a new one, but no effect.  On 02.06.2021, he served the OPs with the notice/letter, in response to which he received an e-mail intimating that his request was sent to the Concerned Department. According to the Respondent/ complainant, the AC was suffering from manufacturing defect. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

4.         The Appellant/OP No.1 was duly served, but it did not appear, as such, it was proceeded against ex-parte by the Ld. Lower Commission vide order dated 22.10.2021.

 

5.         In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Respondent /OP No.2 pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the AC and it was functioning well and giving proper cooling. It has been denied that the AC was defective during its installation and the engineers tried to find out the defect, but unable to find. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellant/ OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

6.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission partly accepted the Complaint and issued directions to the Appellants/Opposite Parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

7.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, the instant Appeals have been filed by the Appellant/OP No.1 (M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) as well as by the Appellant/OP No.2 (M/s Blue Star Ltd. (in cross-appeal).

 

8.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.

 

9.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeals are liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.         The Dealer (M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) in its appeal has tried to get himself scot free raising a plea that he was just a dealer and if there was any defect in the product (A.C), the liability should be fastened on the Manufacturer (M/s Blue Star Limited). Further, it has been contended that the Respondent/Complainant (Sh.Jatinder Singh) was unable to produce expert evidence before the Ld. Lower Commission to substantiate the manufacturing defect in the A.C. in question. However, in our opinion, this is factually incorrect as it has not been denied by it that the Respondent/Complainant is a consumer of the Dealer (M/s Meharsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) from whom he had bought the A.C.  However, per material available on record, it is evident that Appellant/ OP No.1 had received Complaints from the Respondent/ Complainant and whatsapp also and as a sequel thereto, it had sent its Engineer to the place of the Respondent/ Complainant to redress his grievance, but to no effect.  The Appellants/OPs claimed that expert opinion is must to prove any manufacturing defect and in support thereof, they placed reliance on “Kumari Namarata Singh Vs. Manager Indus A Division of Electrotherm & Anr., 2012 [3 CPR 570 [N.C]; Telco Vs. Bachchi Ram Dangal & Anr., 2009 CTJ 506 (CP) (NCDRC); Telco Vs. Sunil Bhasin & Anr., (2008) II CPJ 11 (NC), Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Telco & Anr. (2007) CPJ 2 (NC); Lovely Auto Vs. Harmesh Lal & Anr. (2007) CPJ 312 (NC) and Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Ors. and Rajinder Kaur Vs. Dada Motors Ltd. & Ors., IV (2019) CPJ 482 (NC), which to our mind is misconceived and misplaced, as the ratio of law laid down in aforesaid precedents are clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present matter, in as much as, the Respondent/ Complainant had ably proved by way of cogent and convincing evidence that the A.C. purchased by him was suffering from a manufacturing defect. Moreover, there is overwhelming evidence on record, to show that the Appellants/OPs tried their level best to set-right the defect in the A.C. in question, but could not do so owning to some inherent defect in the same.  The Appellants/OPs are therefore, certainly liable to make the refund of the amount spent by him on the purchase of the faulty product in question.  In this backdrop, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly held that it was the prime duty of the manufacturers as well as the Service Centre to ensure the smooth and trouble free functioning of the gadget giving value for money to the buyer. It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made.

 

11.         Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the present case, we are of the concerted opinion that the Ld. Lower Commission had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and allowed the Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

 

12.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

13.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we do not see any strain of perversity discernible from the order which may occasion to vitiate the same. We are, therefore, dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeals  being bereft of merit are accordingly dismissed. The order of Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

14.         It is made clear that the Respondent/ Complainant shall return the A.C. in question to the Appellants/OPs after the compliance of the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

15.         Certified copy of this order be placed in Cross Appeal No.64 of 2022 titled as “M/s Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh and Anr.”.

 

16.         In view of the present Appeals being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

17.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

18.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

11^th October, 2022                                                                    

Sd/-

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAKESJ K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”