DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2023                                                                                                

                          Filed on: 24/09/2021

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                        

CC NO. 336/2021

Between

COMPLAINANT

Santhosh Kumar P.K., S/o. Karunakaran, Padinare Kallumkal House, House No. 116A, Vallarpadam P.O.,

Permanent Address

Santhosh Kumar P.K., Padinjare Kallumkal House, Poochakkal P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha 688526.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Bismi Home Appliance (Managing Director), Near International Stadium, Kaloor, Cochin 682017
2. Managing Director, Havells India Ltd., 904, Surya Kiran Building, KG Mary, New Delahi 110001

(Rep. by Adv. Suraj John, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist.)

3. Jishnudev K.M. (Service Manager) Lloyd Service Centre, Near Akshaya E-centre No. EKM236, Vedimara, Mannam P.O., Ernakulam 683520.

FINAL ORDER

V. Ramachadran,  Member:

     The complainant states that he had purchased 3 items from the 1^st opposite party on payment of Rs.63,250/- which are 3Star Inverter AC 105 Ton, AC Stabilizer of V-guard and an IFB Washing Machine on 09/03/2021. Even before completion of one moth from the date of purchase the AC became defective which wass informed to the opposite party and the opposite party informed the complainant to take up the matter with Lloyd Customer Care. Accordingly on 06/04/2021a complaint was registered and a technician came from 3^rd opposite party and inspected the device and promised to repair the same. Subsequently the complaint was closed and re-registered on 19/06/2021. On 06/07/2021 and 07/07/2021 the technician from the opposite party tried to repair the AC but it couldn’t be repaired and they promised to replace the defective AC with a new one. Since there was no response from the opposite party the complainant filed a complaint before the Police Authorities. But nothing has been happened even thereafter. The AC supplied by the opposite party is still lying in the house of the complainant as a scrap. In these circumstances the complainant filed this petition for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the AC which is amounting to Rs.34,750/- along with the installation charges and other reliefs.

Upon notice from the complainant opposite parties No. 2 and 3 appeared and filed their version. 1^st opposite party did not file version and hence they set ex-parte.

In the version, the opposite parties contented that the liability of product manufacturer arises in case of any (a) Manufacturing defect in the product or (b) Defective design of the product or (c) There is a deviation from manufacturing specifications: or (d) the product does not conform to the express warranty: or € the product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any harm or any warning regarding improper or incorrect usage or (f) service provided is faulty, inadequate and deficient. The warranty is provided against manufacturing defects and is limited to the repair of the product or replacement of its parts. Further as per the last visit by technician of opposite party on 29/08/2021, there was leakage issue in the Outdoor Unit (ODU). Opposite party had sought approval and offered replacement of the complete ODU. However, complainant refused the offer and was asking for full replacement of the product which is against the principles of natural justice. It has been held in catena of judgements that when the product can be repaired the question of complete replacement does not arise at all. Opposite party submitted that the complainant raised a complaint on 29/08/2021 2^nd opposite party’s engineer visited the complainant’s residence and confirmed that there was ODU leakage issue in the AC. Hence 2^nd opposite party had sought approval for replacing the outdoor unit. However the complainant denied this offer and asked for full unit replacement.

Complainant produced 6 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A6. Exbt. A1 goes to prove that the complainant had purchased Lloyd AC 1.5 Ton along with V-Guard stabiliser for Rs.34,750/- from the 1^st opposite party on 09/03/2021. Exbt. A2 is copy of letter issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Exbt. A3 is copy of ID proof. Exbt. A4 is receipt from Palarivattom Police Station. Exbt. A5 is copy of screen shot. Exbt. A6 is copy of screen shot. There is no record from the side of the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not appear before the Commission from 04/03/2023 onwards and hence the complainant is heard and final orders are passed.

The points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

The complainant had proved with substantial records that he had purchased AC from the 1^st opposite party and from the evidence and statement of the complainant it can be seen that the said AC became defective soon after the purchase. The complainant approached the opposite parties on various occasions and the opposite party sent their technician but their attempt to repair the defect of the AC were all ended in vain. At this gesture, the argument of the opposite party that there is no expert opinion to prove any manufacturing defect is produced by the complainant do not have any merit. Since the opposite party had not denied that the deputation of their technician and their effort to cure the defect which reveals that there was defect for AC whether it is inheritent defect or other. No contrary evidence is adduced by the opposite party to defeat the argument of the complainant. Hence Point No. (1) is found in favour of the complainant and therefore Point No. (2) & (3) decided accordingly.

Hence the following orders are issued.

1. Opposite party shall repair the AC of the complainant into a defect free condition and shall provide an extended warranty for one year from the date of service, cure and return.

1. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

The opposite parties shall jointly and severally liable to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 5^th day of October, 2023. 

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of taxable invoice

Exbt. A2:    Copy of letter

Exbt. A3:    Copy of ID Proof

Exbt. A4:    Copy of receipt

Exbt. A5:    Copy of Screen shot

Exbt. A6:    Copy of Screen shot

Opposite parties evidence

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 336/2021

Order Date: 05/10/2023R