Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 306
Instituted on : 24.05.2022
Decided on : 29.12.2023
Mohd. Sharukh s/o Mohd. Akram R/o H.No.665/18 NearAdarsh School, Arya Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Better Deals, Authorized Dealer of LlyodHavells India Ltd. through its Proprietor and signing authority, situated at Shop no.15, Palika Bazar, Rohtak.
- The Manager, Techno Vision, SCF 42, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001.
- LlyodHavells India Ltd. through its Corporate Manager, office situated at QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Express Way, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
- LlyodHavells India Ltd. through its Authorized person/director office situated at QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Express Way, Noida, UttarPardesh.
…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Parmod Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No. 3& 4.
Opposite party No.1& 2exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a Split AC 1.5 ton on 15.06.2021 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.36000/- vide bill no.4112 dated 15.06.2021. Opposite party No.2 is the service center and opposite party no.3 & 4 are the manufacturer of alleged A.C. After a few days of purchase, there was a cooling problem as well as blower fan voice problem started in the alleged A.C. Complainant moved a complaint to the opposite party No.1 but they did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Complainant approached to opposite party no.2 and told the problems of said A.C. The technician visited the house of complainant but the problem was not resolved. Complainant registered many complaints to opposite party No.2 and in the second week of September 2021 the concerned technician of opposite party No.2 had solved the problem of blower fan but not solved the auto cut cooling problem so the complainant switched off the said A.C. In the month of April 2022 complainant again registered many complaints of auto-cut without cooling and high blower voice to opposite parties through online mode vide reference ID No.13052214673789, 11052214627526 and 10052214594388 but the concerned technician of opposite party never visited the spot nor they solve the problem. In the last week of May 2022, one technician visited the house of complainant and said that the said AC has manufacturing compressor defect, due to this defect the AC remained Auto Cut without cooling and the same manufacturing defect problem was in the blower fan. Complainant requested the opposite party no.2 to replace the said AC with new one or install a new compressor but the opposite party no.2 refused to solve the problem of AC. In question. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of A.C. i.e. Rs.36000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of its purchase till payment and also to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties.Notice issued to opposite party No.1 & 2 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 2 and as such opposite party no.1 vide order dated 20.07.2022 and opposite party No.2 vide order dated 30.01.2023 respectivelyof this Commission were proceeded against exparte.Opposite party No. 3 & 4 in their reply has submitted that complainant had registered complaint calls regarding the said A.C. and on each complaint call, technician of OP company checked the AC and found no issue. Only general servicing was done in the said AC and calls were closed. It is denied that in the month of April 2022 complainant again registered many complaints but the concerned technician of OP never visited the spot or they solved the problem. The opposite party has attended all the telephonic calls from the side of complainant and resolved the issue on each calls and successfully closed the request of complainant after solving the issue.On 20.05.2022 opposite party had replaced the evaporator coil and refilled the gas in the said AC. As per last visit, complainant’s AC was working fine without any issue. It is further submitted that complainant has not attached any documentary evidence to prove his complaint. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the opposite party no. 3 & 4. .
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A& Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.03.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 3 & 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A but failed to conclude their evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and therefore, the evidence of opposite party No.3 & 4 was closed by the order dated 20.12.2023 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case as per the Invoice Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the A.C in question on 15.06.2021 for a sum of Rs.36000/-. As per copy of SMS Ex.C2, opposite party sent replies to the complaint of the complainant and the service request nos. 130522146737789, 11052214627526 and 10052214594388 were issued to the complainant by the opposite party No.3 & 4. As per checking report Ex.C3 dated 02.03.2023 issued by Sh. Naveen Malik, Laxmi Cooling Centre, he checked the AC of complainant and has submitted that : “He checked the AC in question on 02.03.23 at the house of complainant and had found that compressor of AC was defective. Due to which there was auto cut problemwithout cooling. The blower was also giving heavy noise. It was not possible to repair the A.C without replacing the compressor,”. Hence from the alleged report, it is proved that there was problem in the compressor of A.C. and it was not giving cooling.
6 From the complaints made by the complainant and as per the report of technician placed on record as Ex.C3, it is observed that A.C. in question was defective from the very beginning and it was having manufacturing defect, which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite their repeated repairs. On the other hand, opposite party no.3 & 4 did not file any job sheet or any document to prove the fact that the defect was properly removed or there was no defect in the A.C. in question. Hence the opposite party no.3 & 4 being the manufacturer are liable to refund the price of A.C. in question.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 & 4 to refund the amount of Rs.36000/-(Rupees thirty six thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.24.05.2022 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the A.C.in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.3 & 4.
8. 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:
29.12.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member
