Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 360.
Instituted on : 03.08.2018.
Decided on : 05.08.2019.
Charu age 29 years, d/o Sh. Satish Kumar, H.No.1383, Sec.2, Rohtak..
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager of Voltas, A-3, Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
2. Pankaj Electronics, Shop No.36, Palika Bazar, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.N.S.Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 already exparte.
Opposite party No. 2 in person.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Voltas Air-Conditioner from the opposite party no.2 on dated 29.05.2017. That after some time, the above said product stopped working. The complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 but he fully ignored the complainant. That complainant made so many complaints to customer care vide request no.18042112689 dated 21.04.2018, request no.18042720821 dated 27.04.2018 and request no.18051108650 but the respondent did not resolve the problem. That complainant again filed a complaint dated 27.05.2018 vide request no.18051108650 but no needful action has been taken by the opposite party till date. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 28.05.2018 to the OPs, but to no effect. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund Rs.30500/- i.e. the cost of AC alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. As such, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.02.2019 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the A.C. in question stopped working after some time and complainant made so many complaints to the answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.05.2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 10.07.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the A.C. in question on 29.05.2017 for Rs.30500/- from the opposite party No.2 but date of purchase has wrongly been mentioned as 29.05.2018 in the complaint, which was amended on the application of the complainant and vide order dated 01.08.2019 of this Forum. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the alleged A.C. and complainant made so many complaints to the opposite parties through customer care vide request no.18042112689 dated 21.04.2018, request no.18042720821 dated 27.04.2018 and request no.18051108650 and request no.18051108650 dated 27.05.2018 but no needful action has been taken by the opposite parties till date and the A.C. in question is still defective. Perusal of the record reveals that the defects in the alleged A.C. appeared within warranty period, which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repeated requests of the complaint as mentioned above. It is also on record that opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer did not appear despite service through registered post and as such it is presumed that opposite party No.1 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding selling the defective A.C. stands proved. So there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer of A.C. in question, shall refund the price of A.C. i.e. Rs.30500/-(Rupees thirty thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.03.08.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant shall hand over the A.C. in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
