BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

   29^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

ORDER

SRI. SURESH.D, MEMBER

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (hereinafter called as OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant prays to direct the OP to replace the defective AC with a set of new unit, to pay cost of litigation and other expenses of Rs.25,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss, delay, mental torture and harassment and grant such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that, complainant has purchased an Air Conditioner from OP’s dealer on 31^st March 2019 for a sum of Rs.45,800/- when the A.C delivered to the complainant he noticed that serial number written on the box and the serial number written on the invoice are not matching hence he reported the same to OP’s dealer.  Thereafter the technicians of OP came to house of OP and installed the A.C. It was immediately found that A.C. was not cooling properly and also cooling was gone all together.  Since complainant had to go abroad, he could not immediately repot the problem to the service center.  After coming back, when he informed the issue, the service engineers of OP came and inspected the A.C. and informed that cooling gas has completely leaked due to improper installation of the A.C.  The service engineers advised for refilling gas in the outer unit and re-fixing the indoor unit.  The complainant did not accept the suggestions of the OP’s engineer as the new product of the branded company was found defective and he requested for a replacement of the defective product.  Thereafter complainant contacted many times regarding this. But Ops have failed to provide any fruitful response or resolution.  When there is no other option left complainant got issued legal calling upon the Ops to replace the product with new one.  Ops have neither replied nor replaced product.  Hence this complaint.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version in brief as under:

OP contended that complainant is not a consumer as defined in Sec 2(1) (d) (i) of the C.P. Act and there is no deficiency in service and manufacturing defect.  OP further submits that Immediately after receiving the request from the complainant the service engineers of OP have visited and inspected the and tried to rectify the same as the nut of the gas filter to fix properly and same was minor problem, but complainant has not at all permitted them to rectify the same on the demand that he wants replacement of Air Conditioner.  Hence the service engineer have not rectified the same.

Further OP submitted that warranty for the product has been provided only to rectify the defect if any found and it is not a condition precedent to replace the same and if the defect was not in a position to rectify, at that time only the company will replace the same with new one.  In the present case complainant has not permitted the service engineer to rectify the issue. Further it is also found that complainant has used the Air conditioner for period of one month by that time he did not identify the defect found in it.  When it was brought to the notice of OP, he took a step by deputing service engineers to resolve the issue.  OP is still ready to perform his part of contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty if complainant permits to do the same.  on the other hand it is the burden on the complainant to permit the service engineers to rectify the problem found in the A.C., incase, the complainant does not  allow them to do their work the very intention of the warranty will be frustrated.

Further OP submits that he never tried to escape from his liability to provide service to the customers. Thus the question of avoiding phone calls, mails and making false promises to resolve the issues does not arise at all. Hence complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  Further there was no defect in the Air conditioner and there is no service deficiency on the part of OP.  Therefore OP prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP has filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Complainant produced certain documents.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OP side taken as heard.  We have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

2. If so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

3.  What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative in part

Point No.2:  Affirmative in part

Point No.3:  As per the order below

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:  On perusal of the pleadings of the complainant and the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the complainant purchased the Air conditioner from the OP’s dealer for a sum of Rs.45,800/- along with installation and   accessory charges of Rs.4,605/-  for which he has produced copy of the  bills issued by the Unilet  Appliances  Pvt. Ltd., and LG authorized service center by name SS Air Conditioner, Channasandra, Bangalore.   Complainant submits that very first day after installation the A.C. was not cooling properly so he checked the same then the cooling was gone all together.  Complainant contacted OP’s service center to get resolution for the same.  The service Engineers came to the residence of complainant for inspection and found defect in the nut of gas filter as a result cooling gas has been leaked out. 

8. On the other hand OP has taken different contention that the problem found in the A.C was minor, the service engineers of OP were ready to resolve the issue but the complainant has not permitted them to rectify the same on the demand that the complainant wants to replacement of the said Air Conditioner.

9. In the aforesaid OPs statement we have doubt that if the complainant was really interested in getting replacement of said Air Conditioner by improper way, there is no need to call the OPs service engineers for fixing issues.  Further, if there is a truth in the words of OP, the service engineers who visited the complainant’s house for fixing alleged issues could list the defects found in the Air Conditioner and was entering the same on the job card.  Further OP could have retained the job card and must have produced the same as and when need arise and also produce the same before the Commission at the appropriate time and if he did so, same would have been strengthened the OPs case.  In the present case except statement OP has not filed any such document to substantiate his case, hence we draw adverse inference against OP.

          10. After examining the issue the senior engineer of L.G electronics could not get the Air Conditioner be repaired.  Inspite of replacing necessary spare parts OP and his service person have choosen improper way to escape from their liabilities.  Further from the date, on it was purchased, it appears that the new Air Conditioner is under repair.  In our opinion this is a defect that has arised from the manufacturing stage itself otherwise, a new A.C will not require repairs.  Hence we are of the opinion a defective A.C is sold to complainant and even the defects when brought to the notice of OP the same was not rectified.  Hence we answer to the point No.1 in affirmative.   

11. It is also clear from the version filed by the OP that the Solar Water Heating System carries Warranty.  As we have observed that the OP has not disputed the fact that the warranty was in force at the time of institution of this complaint.   Though the warranty period is still persist,  the OP has shown scant respect to carry out the defects found in the Air Conditioner and also he has not taken any action to replace the  new system in place of defective one.

12. Even after issuing legal notice OP neither replied nor taken any action for replacement of A.C that too warranty period is still in force which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  After 2 days from the date of installation of the Air Conditioner defects were found in it.  In our opinion only due to manufacturing defect otherwise a new Air Conditioner will not cooling gas have leakage.  Hence we are of the opinion a defective Air conditioner has sold to complainant and even the defect brought to the notice of OP the same was not rectified.  Hence we answer to the point No.1 in affirmative.

13. POINT No.2: In view of above discussion we answer to the point No.2 partly in the affirmative directing OP to replace the new Air Conditioner bearing product NO. KS-Q18FNZD-LG in Place of defective A.C. within 30 days from the date receiving the Order copy from the Commission and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony physical hardship caused and Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses.  Complainant is not entitled for any other relief prayed in the complaint.  Upon the OP installing New Air Conditioner as mentioned in order complainant is directed to return the Air Conditioner.

14. POINT No.3:  In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

                           ORDER

Complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.

OP is directed to replace the new Air Conditioner bearing product NO. KS-Q18FNZD-LG in place of defective A.C. within 30 days from the date receiving the order copy from the Commission.

Further OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony physical hardship caused to the complainant and Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the open Commission on this 29^th day of December 2020)

Witnesses examined on behalf of complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.Kshirod Kumar Samantara.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:

Sri.T. Jaya Kishor, who being the Branch Service Manager of M/s L.G Electronics India P Ltd., and authorized signatory of OP.

Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party - Nil

Vln*