Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/475

VIDHUSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                              150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO.  475/15

    Vidushi

    R/O House NO. 668,

    Kamajit Sandhu Block,

    Asian Games Village Complex

    New Delhi-110049

VERSUS

1. M/S Vijay Sales, B-1/17, Plot NO.7,

Block B-1, Near Amar Leela Hospital,

Opp. Metro Pillar No.547,

Janakpuri East,

Delhi-110058

 

 

2. Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Office)

Unit No. 802a-802b, 8^th Floor,

Connectus Building, Tower 2,

Near Minto Bridge, Bhavabuti Marg,

Connaught Place, New Dlehi-110001

 

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one split AC of make and model Hitachi 1.5 ton from OP-1 vide invoice 73-DJK0413SIDN 978 dated 22.04.2013 for sale consideration of Rs. 43,000/-. It is alleged that the product in dispute after installation started giving problem regarding I clean system. The complainant lodged several complaints with Ops-1 and 2 which were attended by the engineer of OP-2 but despite that the AC never worked properly and thereafter system totally stopped working after 10-15 days. The complainant on 20.08.2013 requested the OP-1 to replace the defective AC. Despite assurances by the OP-2 no redressal is given till date. The complainant again sent email dated 25.05.2014 to OPs-1 and 2 to replace the defective AC but to no effect. Thereafter on 13.06.2015 again the complainant lodged complaint no. 15061304214 and 15961304210. The engineer of OP-2 visited and insisted to pay advance of Rs. 1,000/- to inspect the product in dispute and same was paid by the complainant. Thereafter he informed that the motor of I clean system got struck and had to be replaced at cost of Rs. 3000/-. It is alleged that the complainant again wrote email dated 24.06.2015 to replace the defective AC but to no effect. It is alleged that though the OP-2 sent email dated 25.06.2015 assuring to redress the complainant, but to no effect. Hence the present complaint for directions to the OPs for replacement of the defective AC and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.   

     After notice Op-1 appeared and filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the material facts. It is asserted that complaint received from the complainant was forwarded to the OP-2.

On merits it was denied that the AC was defective and asserted that the OP-1 is dealer of OP-2 and as and when the complainant was received it was forwarded to OP-2 who was liable to check and remove the defect. It was asserted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP-1 hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The OP-2 despite notice failed to appeared and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.01.2016.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 controverting their stands and reaffirming the contents of the complaint and asserted that the dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

When the parties were asked to file evidence, the complainant testified contents of the complaint on oath. He also relied on   annexure -I voucher no. 73-DJK04-13RFCV 682 and 73-DJK0413SIDN 978 dated 22.04.2013, annexure-II copy of consumer complaint, annexure -III copy of written complaint lodged with M/S Vijay Sales on 21.08.2013, Annexure-IV copy of e-mail communication dated 22.05.2014, Annexure -V copy of communication dated 24.06.2015 and annexure –VI & VII copy of communications dated 25.06.2015.

The OP-1 filed affidavit of Shri Sonu Singh reiterating the contents of the reply and it is deposed that the split AC in dispute is having manufacturing defect and OP-2 is liable as it is manufacturer and he also filed written arguments.

We have heard complainant in person and counsel for the Ops-1 and 2 and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The controversy involved in the present case is as whether the complainant is entitled for the relief he has sought .  

From the perusal of the record it reveals that the Split AC has developed fault regarding auto cleaning system which was not working properly. The OP-2 vide email dated 25.06.2015 assured the complainant to resolve the grievance but as alleged by the complainant till date the grievance of the complainant is not redressed by the OP-2. During the course of arguments the complainant asserted that he has purchased the AC with Auto cleaning features which is not working properly from the inception of the purchase.

We are of the considered view that the OP-2 failed to provide the services to the complainant and the product for which the complainant has paid. The complainant was unable to use the product for which he has paid. Hence we are of the opinion that the OP-2 is liable to replace the new AC of same make and model within 30 days from the receipt of the order. We also award Rs. 7,000/- on account of compensation of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses. The complainant is directed to handover the old AC after replacement with new one.     

Order pronounced on:-

 

 

 (K.S. MOHI)                                                                           (PUNEET LAMBA)

     President                                                                                    Member