First Appeal No. 359 of 2012. Case: Jugnu Dhillon Vs Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. and Ors.. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 359 of 2012
Party NameJugnu Dhillon Vs Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. and Ors.
JudgesS.A. Siddiqui, Member (J) and S.C. Jain, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 25, 27
Judgement DateFebruary 11, 2014
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Judgment:

S.C. Jain, Member

  1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.2.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 570/10 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Saini Enclave, Delhi-92. Facts of the case are that on 25.2.2010 complainant/appellant purchased from respondent-1/OP-1 two air conditioners manufactured by respondent-2/OP-2 for a sum of Rs. 25,999 each. The appellant/complainant alleged that the ACs were defective from the very beginning and they made several complaints to the respondents/OPs as well as to the service centre of OPs i.e. respondent No. 3-Hitachi Homes and Life Solution India Ltd. As the ACs were purchased in the month of February and were also installed at the residence of the appellant/complainant in that very month, so they were seldom used after the installation as the season at that time was a winter season and summer was not at its peak but when during the month of May, when the summer started and they starting using the ACs, one of the ACs out of the two did not work and the complainant lodged a complaint on the helpline Number of the OPs. The appellant/complainant was given the complaint No. 8000597083. Nobody from the OPs contacted the appellant/complainant for 16 days and it was only on 21.5.2010 that the ACs were taken by OP-1/respondent-1 representative Sh. Dhananjay for repair and at that time Sh. Dhananjay ask for a warranty card/bill which was not available on that day and the same was provided to OP-1/respondent-1 on 25.5.2010.

  2. On 2.6.2010 Sh. Aman Verma from respondent-1/OP-1 along with Sh. Vinay Kapil of Hitachi visited the appellant/complainant and assured her that as the compressor of the AC is defective, they shall refunded the cost of the AC as they do not have other AC of the same Model because the AC purchased by them is of very old model. But in spite of several calls to the respondents/OPs, they did not refunded the amount and simply informed the appellant/complainant that the defect in the AC has been rectified and they shall install the repaired AC at her residence.

  3. The appellant/complainant submitted in its complaint that the OPs/respondents agreed to replace the AC with the superior model as the AC of the same model was not available with them and also told to make the payment of the difference amount of the higher model. It was further mentioned by the appellant/complainant that the stabilizers supplied by the OPs/respondent were also...

To continue reading

Request your trial