BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA
Complaint No. 895 of 21/12/2010
Date of order: 08.03.2011
Karamjit Kaur wife of Shri Jagmohan Singh, resident of Mohalla Bhupinder Nagar, Ward No.12, Near Salana Cycle Industry, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
… Complainant
Versus
M/s.Rattan Enterprises c/o M/s.Rattan Collection, SCO 126, Guru Amar Dass Market, Khanna, through its Authorised Signatory.
IInd Address:
BO Subhash Bazar, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
… Opposite Party
Complaint U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.
Present:
Sh. Rajesh Mehra, Adv. For complainant
OP exparte
O R D E R
SMT. PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER
1. Complainant Smt. Karamjit Kaur purchased one A.C. of 1.5 Ton Feeder worth Rs.14,000/- from OP. On 1.6.2006, complainant assured by OP that the A.C. carries 5 years warranty against the compressor and one year over all warranty. The fact regarding 5 years warranty of compressor and over all warranty of 1 year is duly mentioned on the invoice, was issued by the OP. It is alleged that recent past the compressor of the A.C. stopped working and complainant approached OP for the rectification of the same as the said compressor was within the warranty period as given by them but they dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant approached numerous times to the OP and lastly to the utter surprise of the complainant, Op refused to change the compressor. Complainant also got served a registered legal notice dt. 14.10.2010 on 20.10.10 upon the OP calling them to remove the defect in the said compressor to the satisfaction or to change the same with new one and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of counsel fee.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP but OP intentionally failed to appear despite issuance of registered notice. Consequently, OP was proceeded against ex-parte on 3.3.11.
3. Complainant in ex-parte evidence to prove his claim submitted an affidavit Ex.CX along with documents Ex.C1 to C5.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant exparte and have also perused the documents on record.
5. Complainant duly proved his claim vide documents placed on record regarding purchase of the impugned 1.5 Ton Feeder A.C.worth Rs.14,000/- on 1.6.2006 and the assurance qua warranty of compressor for five years is also endorsed on the invoice Ex,C1. The copy of the registered notice Ex.C2 and postal receipts Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 are evident to the fact that the complainant disputed the defect of the compressor in the impugned A.C, which remains unsolved. Complainant also supported his allegations vide his duly attested sworn affidavit to corroborate the allegations so made by him in the present complaint.
6. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that OP is liable in view of the invoice Ex.C1 qua the warranty of 5 years against compressor; to replace the same, in case, of any defect therein. Hence, by allowing this complaint, we direct OP to replace the impugned compressor of the A.C. of the complainant. Further, OP is burdened compensation and litigation costs compositively assessed Rs.1500/-(One thousand five hundred only) to be paid to the complainant. The order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(Priti Malhotra) (T.N.Vaidya)
Member President
Announced on 08.03.2011
Gurpreet Sharma