LAWS(HPCDRC)-2014-9-5

M/S. ANAND ELECTRONICS Vs. JITENDER CHAUDHARY

Decided On September 22, 2014
M/S. Anand Electronics Appellant
V/S
Jitender Chaudhary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant's grievance is against the order dated 04.06.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent -Jitender Chaudhary, has been allowed and a direction given to it, to replace the air conditioner within twenty days of the passing of impugned order, failing which to refund the price of the defective air conditioner, which is Rs.24,800/ -, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, and also to pay Rs.4,000/ -, as compensation, and Rs.2,000/ -, as costs.

(2.) Appellant is a dealer of Samsung Company. Respondent purchased one air conditioner from the appellant on 18.06.2012, for a consideration of Rs.24,800/ -. According to the respondent, the air conditioner started giving trouble soon after its purchase. Appellant was allegedly approached to remove the defect. When the appellant did not remove the defect or replace the air conditioner, a legal notice was served. Appellant replied to the notice and refused to admit the respondent's claim. This according to the respondent amounted to deficiency in service and, therefore, he filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellant seeking a direction for replacement of the air conditioner or refund of its price and also demanding compensation and litigation expenses.

(3.) Compliant was contested by the present appellant and it was pleaded that the air conditioner did not have any defect and that it was non -functional because of the reason that its gas had leaked, which was required to be refilled and that, as soon as the complaint was received from the respondent, manufacturing company, i.e. Samsung had been informed to refill the gas. It was alleged that warranty was given by the manufacturing company, i.e. Samsung and, therefore, the said Company was a necessary party, as the liability for replacement of parts/repair/replacement of air conditioner during warranty period, was undertaken through the warranty by Samsung.