DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 190 of 25.5.2017

                                      Decided on:         2.3.2021

Sandeep Kumar son of Jasvir Singh R/o V.P.O. Balbehra, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Parsad NK Systech Pvt. Ltd. B.O.near Chemists Market, Bagichi Het Ram, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala.
2. Emerson Climate Technologies Consumer Care Redressal Officer, Plot No.23, Rajiv Gandhi Infotect Park, Phase-II, Hinjewadi, Pune.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Amandeep Verma, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Complaint against OP No.2 has been withdrawn.        

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sandeep Kumar   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Parsad NK Systech Pvt. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)

Facts of the complaint

2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased one compressor CR 30 of AC having Sr. No.RAA0018636, make Copeland vide invoice dated 18.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.11500/- from OP No.1.It is averred that on the same date the complainant stated using the same but it did not function properly. Complainant approached OP No.1 who replaced the same but the same was did not work properly. Complainant again approached OP No.1, who advised the complainant to contact OP No.2.Complainant contacted OP No.2 who told that the product was expired in the year 2013 and out of warranty, meaning thereby that the OP No.1 had sold expiry date product to the complainant. Complainant approached OP No.1 and  requested for the replacement of the same but OP No.1 flatly refused to do so. The complainant also got sent legal notice dated 5.5.2017 upon the OPs who received the same but failed to give any reply. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, which caused mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to  replace the product with new one or to pay the price of the product Rs.11,500/- alongwith interest; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses and also to pay Rs.5000/-as counsel fee.
3. Upon notice OP No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. However, OP No.1 refused to receive the notice and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.

Reply/Written statement

4. In the written reply filed by OP No.2 preliminary objections have been raised that the OP No.1 M/s Prasad NK Systech Pvt. Ltd. is not an authorized dealer and the warranty of the product had already been expired on 4.6.2016.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the product sold by OP No.1 was already expired and was out of warranty and the OP No.2 cannot be held responsible for the same and has prayed  for the dismissal of the complaint filed against OP No.2.
6.  
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
7. Here, it may be stated that ample opportunities were given to OP No.2 for leading evidence but OP No.2 neither appeared nor lead any evidence and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2.8.2018.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9.  
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that vide invoice No.670 dated 18.5.2016, the complainant  purchased one compressor for an amount of Rs.11,500/- from OP No.1 but the same was defective  and did not work properly and he approached the service centre i.e. OP No.2 who told that the product was expired being out of warranty. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP No.1 has sold the defective product so the complaint be allowed.
10. To prove the case the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint.Ex.C1 is the invoice/bill dated 8.5.2016 for Rs.11500/- in which Comp.CR 30 is mentioned. Ex.C2 is the document of Emerson showing the serial number of the product as RAA0018636,Ex.C3 is the legal notice sent to OPs No.1&2, Exs.C4 and C5 are the postal receipts.The complainant has also placed on record terms and conditions of warranty. No rebuttal evidence has been produced by the OPs. In para no.2 of  the written reply filed by OP No.2 it is submitted that the product sold by OP No.1 was already expired and was out of warranty, so it is proved that OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service by selling defective product to the complainant .
11. So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to replace the compressor with new one. Compliance of the order be made by the  OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.3.2021         

                                    Y.S.Matta                           Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President