Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/26

Saurabh K.Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFB Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Saurabh K.Puri Adv.

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 26 dated 09.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 10.01.2023.

 

Saurabh K. Puri, Advocate (authorized person) S/o. Sh. Bharat Bhushan, R/o. H. No.B-XIX-1395/10, Main Lane, Dev Nagar, Adj. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. IFB Industries Limited # Home Appliances Division, L1, Verna Electronic City, Verna Sacete, GOA, India-403722.
2. IFB Industries Limited, having its Corporate Address #2, Pot No/.IND-5, Sector-1, East Kolkata, Kolkata, India-700107.
3.  Jolly Refrigeration # Main Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, TIN-03572100032. M. No.98141-44302, 98144-38035.                                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Saurabh K. Puri in person.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Swaraj Pal Sooden, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a practicing Advocate at District Courts, Ludhiana and is authorized to fie and pursue the complaint on behalf of Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate. The complainant submitted that an IFB Split type air conditioner-indoor unit having model IACS18KA3TP manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2 from opposite party No.3 by Sh. Bharat Bhushan through relative of complainant vide challan No.5974 dated 17.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.45,000/-. The said air conditioner was installed at the residence in the month of May 2018 by representative of opposite party No.1 and 2 who at the time of installing the air conditioner told that there is no gas in the unit and they came again to refill the gas. The complainant further submitted that the air conditioner remained effective till two or three days after one week of installation and filing of gas and after that the complainant lodged complaint at toll free No.1860 4255 678 and the local service center, Ludhiana again sent the service employees and they uninstalled the inlet unit with condition of replacing with new one but instead of replacing the whole unit (inlet and outlet), they repaired the said inlet unit of air conditions. However, still the cooling of air conditioner was ineffective and the problem of noise and leakage of water from inlet unit of air conditioner was still there. The complainant lodged a complaint on which the authorized service manager Mr. Manoj examined the air conditioner along with expert and apprised the factum of problem in coil of the air conditioner at outlet portion by which the gas was leaked and cooling was ineffective. The complainant requested them to replace the air conditioner with new one as he has suffered a lot during the long hot summer season and also suffered mental and physical harassment then the concerned Manager Mr. Manoj told the complainant to talk with higher Managers and demanded whole details/invoice which was duly supplied to him except the invoice. Opposite party No.3 failed to hand over sale invoice in spite of repeated requests rather it told the complainant to talk with opposite party No.1 and 2 regarding replacement of the air conditioner.  When the complainant talked with Manager Mr. Manoj, then he told to repair the outlet portion of the air conditioner by changing parts but the complainant did not accept the same and requested them to change/replace the air conditioner. The complainant also sent mails to opposite party No.1 and 2 at Goa through their website https://www.ifbappliances.com but they failed to consider the genuine grievance of the complainant. The complainant has suffered loss of reputation and loss of cases from April 2018 as well besides suffering physical and mental harassment. In the end, the complainant made a prayer for directing opposite parties to replace the old air conditioner with new one along with sale invoice or to refund Rs.45,000/- along with interest @8% per annum and to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages, compensation for causing physical and mental agony and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice was sent to the opposite parties through registered post on 01.05.2019 but the same was not received back either served or unserved even after elapse of period of 30 days. As such, the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.04.2019.  However, on 18.02.2021, opposite party No.1 and 2 filed application for setting aside exparte order dated 20.06.2019 and vide order dated 23.07.2021, opposite party No.1 and 2 were permitted to join the proceedings from the stage the complaint was pending. As the complaint was at the stage of arguments and as such, opposite party No.1 and 2 filed written arguments.   

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the authority letter dated 07.01.2019, Ex. C2 is copy of challan no.5974 dated 17.04.2018, Ex. C3 is photograph of the air conditioner, Ex. C4 is the copy of email dated 11.08.2018, Ex. C5 is the copy of directory of District Bar Association, Ludhiana, Ex. C6 is the identity card of the complainant issued by District Bar Association, Ludhiana and closed the evidence. In additional evidence, the complainant also submitted documents i.e. Ex. AD/A  to Ex. AD/D are the photographs, Ex. AD/E is the copy of invoice No.10669 dated 18.05.2019 and closed the additional evidence.  

4.                            We have given thoughtful consideration to pleadings of the parties and have examined evidence on record. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘defect’ as enshrined in Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘Defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”

The definition is wide enough to include any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard. A seller is under legal obligation to maintain goods free from any defect. In Tata Motors Jivan Tara Building Vs Rajesh Tyagi in 2013 SCC Online NCDRC 1031whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that whenever a brand new vehicle is sold to a consumer, there is an implied contract that the vehicle being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.      

5.                Perusal of evidence on record shows that the complainant started encountering the problem with the functioning of the air conditioner even from the day of its installation as there was no gas in the unit. The representative of opposite party No.1 and 2 had to fill the gas to make it functional and it took 7 days for them to complete the job.  It worked for 2-3 days only and again a complaint was lodged. Firstly one of its unit was uninstalled but subsequently it was just repaired and the cooling of the air conditioner remained ineffective and the leakage of water from the unit of the air conditioner continued. The factum of mal-functioning of the air conditioner was acknowledged by the expert of authorized service centre Mr. Manoj but they did not accede to the request of the complainant to replace the air conditioner nor the product was effectively repaired and the complainant and his family continued to suffer the harassment and mental agony. The very purpose of installation of the air conditioner in the summer got defeated.

6.                In Maruti Udyog  Ltd. Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another 2006 (4) SCC (644) whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that where defects in various parts of a car are established, direction for replacement of the car would be justified. “Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for.” Further in C.N. Ananthram Vs M/s. Fiat India Ltd. and others 2010 (4) CPJ 56 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby the complainant sought replacement or full refund of the amount along with interest for “defect in the engine of the vehicle”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the replacement of the defective engine with new engine would suffice. Further, in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Sharad and others in 2016 (SCC) NCDRC 1600 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that whether the vehicle purchased by the complainant suffered certain defects and also used for considerable kilometers, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that a new vehicle cannot be replaced and defective part of old vehicle has to be replaced.  Hence the act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and they are liable for repair of the air conditioner in question to the satisfaction of the complainant and also to pay composite costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to repair the air conditioner in question comprehensively and to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Saurabh K. Puri Vs IFB Industrial Limited                     CC/19/26

Present:       Complainant Sh. Saurabh K. Puri in person.

                   Sh. Swaraj Pal Sooden, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to repair the air conditioner in question comprehensively and to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) jointly and severally to the complainant within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.               

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.