BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 90 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 21.01.2022
Date of Decision : 17.12.2024.
Sh. Jeet Singh son of Mahender Singh, resident of Dudiyawali, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Verma Enterprises, Shiv Chowk, Chopra Wali Gali, Near Multani Dharamshala, Sirsa (125055).
2. Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., Building Number 1, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, Opposite Modi Mill, New Delhi (110020).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Deepak Grover, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Parshant Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 30.04.2021 complainant had purchased one air conditioner make Haier 1.5 ton from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.26,000/- vide invoice no. 300 dated 30.04.2021 with one year guarantee. That said air conditioner since from the day of its purchase was giving trouble to the complainant as there was low cooling, gas leakage, its pipe was burst but ops have failed to redress his grievances despite his several requests despite the fact that their mechanic also found defects in the air conditioner and ultimately complainant had to get it repaired from Basant Singh and he had paid Rs.7000/- for repair of the air conditioner. It is further averred that due to supply of a defective air conditioner and due to non redressal of his grievances despite the fact that same was within warranty period, the ops have caused financial loss and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that company is responsible for manufacturing guarantee whereas care centre of the company is also responsible for its repair and looking after. The fitting of the AC i.e. installation was done by the engineers of the company, hence op no.1 has nothing to do with the same in any manner. It is further submitted that engineers of the company visited the premises of the complainant and found that AC in question is running on the spot in a proper and well condition and if any defect was found in it, the engineers would have surely removed the defect of the AC. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 did not appear despite delivery of notice and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Basant Singh, Mechanic as Ex. CW2/A and documents Ex.CW2/1 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.
6. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kumar, Proprietor as Ex. R1.
7. From the invoice Ex.C1, it is evident that on 30.04.2021 complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.26,000/-. The complainant alleges defects in the air conditioner since from the day of its purchase. The complainant also got served a legal notice to the ops in this regard on 13.10.2021 i.e. within warranty period of one year, the copy of which is also placed on file by complainant as Ex.C3. The complainant has also placed on file affidavit of Sh. Basant Singh Mechanic as Ex. CW2/A in which he has testified that he had repaired the AC of the complainant in the month of May, 2021 as there was gas leakage and other issues of heating and pipe burst and he had charged Rs.7000/- from complainant for repairs work of the air conditioner within warranty period and in this regard complainant has also placed on file estimate cum bill of Rs.6980/- issued by said Basant Singh Mechanic as Ex.C2. The op no.1 has failed to prove on record that there was no any issue in the air conditioner and engineers of the company found that air conditioner was working properly because op no.1 except his affidavit has not placed on file any report/ affidavit of any of the engineer of the company in this regard. So, it is proved on record that air conditioner in question was having defects within warranty period but grievances of complainant have not been redressed by any of the ops despite his requests rather op no.2 which is manufacturer of air conditioner in question even did not bothered to appear despite notice and opted to be proceeded against exparte and as such it cannot be said at all that engineers of the company ever checked the air conditioner and found it working properly.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.26,000/- plus Rs.7000/- (i.e. price of the air conditioner and the amount paid by complainant for repair of air conditioner within warranty period) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said total amount of Rs.33,000/- from the ops alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We further direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. The ops will be entitled to receive air conditioner in question from the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 17.12.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
