Complaint No: 109 of 2023.

                                                     Date of Institution: 07.06.2023.

                                                            Date of order:  12.10.2023

Vikram Oberoi aged about 43 years son of Sh. Raghuvir Pal, R/o of VPO Bharath Qazi Chak, Tehsil Dina Nagar and District Gurdaspur. Pin – 143532.

                                                                                                                                                                             ….......Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                               VERSUS

1.       Khanna Electronics, Railway Road, Pathankot Tehsil and District Pathankot, through its Authorized Signatory / Prop. Pin – 145001.

2.       Somany Home Innovation Ltd. 68, Echelon Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurugram (Haryana) - 122001, through its Authorized Signatory. PIN___                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                               .....Opposite Parties.

                                                 Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the complainant: Sh.Sanjeev Sharma representative of complainant in person.

             Opposite parties: Exparte.        

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Vikram Oberoi, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Khanna Electronics etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the OP No. 1 for purchasing Gas Stove and Gas Chimney. It is submitted that the OP No. 1 advised the complainant to purchase Hindware appliances. It is further pleaded that on the advice of the OP No. 1, the complainant purchased Hindware Theo Plus 90 Chimney and Hindware Tulip 3B 65 CM Hob worth Rs.37,901/- vide Invoice / Bill No. 97 dated 14.09.2021. It is further pleaded that OP No. 1 had given warranty of the above mentioned appliances for 2 years. It is further submitted that though the Chimney supplied by the OP No. 1 is quite OK, but the Gas Stove supplied by the OP No. 1 is a defective one. It is further pleaded that earlier when the Gas Stove was being burnt it becomes off immediately and now the same is event not starting / burning and is lying without any uses. It is further pleaded that complainant brought this fact to the notice of the OP No. 1 orally time and again and even the OP No. 1 sent his representatives to the house of the complainant, but of no use. It is further pleaded that left with no alternative, the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP No. 2 on 24.03.2023. It is further pleaded that the OP No. 2 asked the complainant to send Video of Gas Stove to their Engineer namely Mr. Dinesh Kumar and accordingly, the complainant sent Video of the same to Mr. Dinesh Kumar. It is further pleaded that thereafter, no action into the matter was taken; rather the OP No. 2 closed the complaint without the consent of the complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter, the complainant made phone calls to above said Mr. Dinesh Kumar, but he did not respond. It is further pleaded that complainant again lodged the complaint on 01.05.2023 and again above said Mr. Dinesh Kumar was appointed for the needful, but strange enough, till today none from the side of the OP’s came to repair the Gas Stove of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant had opted to purchase the Gas Stove only because of the assurance given by the OP No. 1 that the Gas Stove in question was best of the market and of modern technique and would give trouble free services for a long time, but there had been major inherent manufacturing defects in the said Gas Stove at the time of sale of the same to the complainant who had paid for a new and defect free Gas Stove and that this fact was well within the express knowledge of the OP No. 1 who caused great loss to the complainant by passing of the defected Gas Stove to the complainant by saying as completely fit and without any defect. It is further pleaded that inordinate delay in the replacement of the defective Gas Stove and delay/failure in removing the defects from the Gas Stove in question is deficiency in service resulting out of negligent / illegal / irresponsible attitudes of the OP’s which has resulted in incurring huge financial loss to the complainant as he had to remain without its use for majority of time. It is further pleaded that the OP’s are liable for making the Gas Stove use worthy or for replacement of the defective Gas Stove with new one. It is further pleaded that the complainant had been approaching regularly to the OP’s and requesting to do the needful and make the Gas Stove fit for use or replace the same with a defect free Gas Stove but two days back the OP No. 1 orally refused to take any action into the matter and threatened the complainant to go anywhere, no action is being taken into the matter. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to replace the defective Gas Stove of the complainant with the new one Gas Stove OR to take back the defective Gas Stove and to refund full price of same along with 12% P.A. interest from the date of purchase till actual realization. The opposite parties be further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- may also be awarded in favour of the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Opposite party No.1 did not appear to file written reply inspite of availing three opportunities and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2023. Opposite party No.2 also did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 20.09.2023.

4.       Complainant alongwith complaint has filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C4.

5.       Written arguments not filed by the complainant.

6.       Representative of the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased Hindware Chimney and Hindware Tulip 3B 65 Hob vide bill Ex.C1 but Hindware Chimney was not working properly and inspite of complaints having been made as per copy of messages Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 but the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defect or to replace the defective product or to return the price of the defective product.

7.       Opposite parties remained exparte and has not contested the complaint and evidence led by the complainant remained unrebutted. 8.        We have heard the representative of the complainant in person. Although, there is no report of any technician or engineer regarding defect in the hob but the copy of messages shows that the defect claimed by the complainant was never rectified by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service.

9.       Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- i.e. the full price of Hindware Tulip 3B 65 CM Hob as per Ex.C1 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 14.09.2021 till realization. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. The complainant shall return the defective product to the opposite parties after receipt of the payment. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                        President  

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Oct. 12, 2023                                                Member

*YP*