E-Paper
Mohali resident awarded complete refund for defective AC
Penalising Carrier Media India Private Limited, Gurugram, and its retailer Gupta Electric Co, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, the consumer commission directed them to refund ₹44,900 paid for the air-conditioner, along with ₹7,500 as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and ₹5,500 as cost of litigation
A Mohali resident, who had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, over a defective air-conditioner, has been awarded a complete refund for the machine.
Penalising Carrier Media India Private Limited, Gurugram, and its retailer Gupta Electric Co, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, the commission has directed them to refund ₹44,900 paid for the air-conditioner (AC), along with ₹7,500 as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and ₹5,500 as cost of litigation.
The order came on the complaint of Navneet Pandey, 29, who had bought two ACs and a geyser for ₹1 lakh from the Sector-22 store in October 2021 with a warranty of 1+5 years.
Pandey submitted before the commission that in April 2022, one of the ACs started malfunctioning, following which he filed a complaint with the shop and customer care of Carrier Media.
The engineers rectified the defect and assured that the AC will function smoothly. But it failed again and another repair was of no use.
In June and July 2022, he wrote two e-mails to Carrier Media seeking refund for the AC, but in vain. Alleging that his family suffered a lot because of the defective AC, he approached the consumer commission seeking action.
The commission observed that despite receipt of the e-mails within the warranty period, the opposition parties (OPs) did not bother to resolve the issue in the AC, which “certainly amounted to deficiency in service on their part”.
“The complainant spent a huge sum of ₹44,900 on purchase of the brand new AC, having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving behind the OPs and then to this commission for seeking justice in the absence of the proper services being rendered by them,” it said.
“No useful purpose will be served by directing the OPs to replace the product in question as the consumer has lost faith in that company’s product,” the commission held.
The opposition parties did not appear before the commission to rebut the allegations, hence they were proceeded against ex parte. “This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them and proves that they have nothing to say in their defence qua the allegations made by the complainant,” the commission observed.
Stating that they had indulged in deficiency in service as they failed to provide the promised services, the court directed them to refund ₹44,900, the invoice value of the AC in question, to the complainant.
