| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No.250 of 17-09-2019 Decided on : 26-05-2022 Tarsem Chand Goyal S/o Chanan Ram # 14313, St. No.2, Ganesh Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus M/s Eltech Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Corporate office-Seethakathi Business Centre, No.684-690, Office No.5, 6th Floor, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600006, through its Proprietor/Director/Manager/Partner, M/s Eltech Appliances Pvt. Ltd, SCO-2475-76, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Area Manager. M/s Rama Krishna Traders, Gali No.10, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner. (Deleted) M/s Rohit Enterprises, Barnala Road, Bhagta Bhai Ka (Bathinda), through its Prop.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Sh.Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt.Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh.Sandeep Kumar Garg, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.1 and 2 : Sh.B.L Sachdeva, Advocate Opposite party No.3 : Deleted. For opposite party No.4 : Sh.Ravinder Singh Sethi, Advocate ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Tarsem Chand Goyal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against M/s Eltech Applicances Pvt. Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Ton VEESTAR Air Conditioner for Rs.25,000/- vide memo No.303 dated 6.6.2019 from opposite party No.4. The Air Conditioner was installed in his premises. It is alleged that the complainant observed that the cooling of the Air Conditioner is not adequate even on setting on minimum temp. of '17'. He requested opposite party No.4 for repair of defect of the Air Conditioner being within the guarantee period. The dealer further lodged the complaint on phone to opposite party No.3, the distributors of VEESTAR Brand Air Conditioners. Opposite party No.3 further transmitted the complaint to the service centre incharge of VEESTAR Air Conditioner Sh.Sangesh Kumar and he visited the premises of the complainant and told that due to high temp. (about 45-46) and due to new machine, the cooling is not proper. The cooling will be improved on running of Air Conditioner continuously for few days. So try to run the Air Conditioner continuously. He further suggested that instead of going to the company for any complaint, complainant should talk to him directly. It is further alleged that after few days, the complainant again asked the service centre incharge to look into the working of Air Conditioner as its cooling was not improved. Mr.Sangesh visited two three times thereafter in the month of June and early July 2019 and tried to set right the defect, but to no avail. The complainant time and again requested Mr.Sangesh Kumar on mobile, but he did not attend the phone and he sent massage that "l am busy now. Call you later". This process continued for more than one month. The complainant has also given the details of mobile calls made to Mr.Sangesh on mobile No.94173-45553 and response, detail of which is mentioned in the complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant number of times requested approached opposite party Nos.3 and 4 for removal of defect, but nothing was done. At last, on 4.8.2019, he personally visited the shop of the distributer i.e. opposite party No.3, it and repeated the whole story. Opposite party No.3 contacted Mr.Munish Nehru, Company's Area Manager at Chandigarh, he assured that the problem will be resolved immediately and also suggested that a complaint may also be registered on customer care. On 5.8.2019, the complainant sent an e-mail to the customer care. The customer care raised some queries, which were duly replied vide e-mail dated 10.8.2019, but nothing was done. On 14.8.2019, the complainant again sent e-mail regarding defective Air Conditioner in some hard language, in response to this e-mail, a message was received that the complaint had been registered under service No.CHA214081900034. Thereafter he sent e-mails on 18.8.2019, 23.8.2019 and 9.9.2019, but nothing has been done so far. The complainant also contacted the service head of the company Mr.Sumit at Chandigarh on 5.8.2019, 23.8.2019, 27.8.2019, 31.8.2019, 4.9.2019, 5.9.2019 and 7.9.2019, but only verbal assurance were given and nothing has been done. He made many requests to opposite parties for change/repair of Air Conditioner, but to no response. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to change the Air Conditioner and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment with cost. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written version. In written version, opposite party No.1 and 2 have raised the preliminary submissions that they are renowned company in electronic products and commodities and are making and sale of electronic products for the past several years. The product setting by the company is highly sophisticated and manufacturer of the world class products. At the outset, they deny each and every statement or contention, which is inconsistent with or contrary to, whatever is stated in the written statement. Any statement or contention not specifically denied by them shall not be deemed to have been admitted. The intent of the company is to serve its customer and goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeccable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any circumstances. In case, any after sale service/quality issue is brought to the notice of the service center, as a policy matter, the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. Each and every preliminary objection is independent of and without prejudice to the other and they reserve their right to espouse further objections and build upon the ones already taken. Thereafter opposite party No.1 and 2 have raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is baseless, devoid of any merits whatsoever and without any cause-of-action whatsoever against them and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs in their favour and against the complainant. The complainant has not approached before this Forum with clean hands and hidden the correct facts. The services have been provided to the complainant whenever reported/demanded by him and there is no deficiency in services or any unfair trace practice on their part. No cause-of-action arises in favour of the complainant. This complaint is nothing, but a motivated attempt, just only to grab illegal benefits from them. The complaint of the complainant alleges defect in the product. The alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm it. It is the settled position of law that an expert opinion/cogent evidence is mandatory under section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act to prove the allegations/averments made by the complainant. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the manufacturing/technical fault and to place on record any analysis test report for the perusal of this Forum and in the absence of any technical report on record, the complaint deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It is further pleaded that the complainant has by way of relief sought compensation/damages without in any manner demonstrating that any loss has in fact been occasioned and in what manner computation of compensation claimed has been made. The complaint is thus a motivated attempt to obtain unfair advantage. The complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of opposite party No.1 and 2 by filing frivolous claim and is abuse of the process of law, misuse of the machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs in favour of opposite party No.1 and 2 and against the complainant. There is no deficiency in services or any unfair trade practice on their part. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 provided one year warranty for the unit and five year warranty only for the compressor of the unit and also the warranty is subject to some terms and conditions and one of the foremost condition is that the unit that is claimed under warranty must be installed by the authorized and efficient engineer of the opposite party No.1, but in this case, the complainant has not installed his unit by the engineer of opposite party No.1, therefore breaking the terms and conditions of warranty. No warranty service is applicable for the unit of the complainant. Rather opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have checked the unit and reported 'No Cooling' issue due to faulty/unauthorized installation of the unit instead of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have repaired/rectified the reported issue of 'No Cooling' and unit of complainant is working fine. It is further pleaded that the complainant with regard to complaint regarding the unit, approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and reported 'No Cooling' in his unit. Their engineer duly checked the unit and found that due to installation of unit by any unauthorized mechanic/engineer, the unit has been installed without vaccume and flushing of the unit. Their unit must be vacuumed and flushed at the time of installation for proper cooling and in the case of complainant, same has not been done. Due to this reason, the choking problem occurred in the unit and its cooling got effected. The engineer told the whole facts to the complainant and copper pipe of unit got replaced and the gas filled and unit of the compressor became O.K. Thereafter on 2.10.2019, the complainant again approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and reported 'No Cooling Problem' in his unit. The manager of opposite party No.1 namely Sumit Gulati alongwith the service team personally visited the house of complainant and completely checked the unit and found the unit intermittenly due to dust chocking and vantilation issue. The team cleaned the unit and reinstalled the outdoor unit for better air ventilation and job done for proper ventilation of unit. After that, no issue has been reported by the complainant and subsequently, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 came to know about this complaint. Warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, it will be replaced or its parts will be replaced as per company policy and warranty of the unit (warranty means only repair not replacement) is subject to some conditions and warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions: 1. Liquid Logged/water logging. 2. Physically Damage. 3. Serial No. Missing. 4. Tampering. 5. Mishandling/Burnt etc. 6. Unauthorized installation of unit i.e. installation by a person other than engineer of the company. lt is also pleaded that the service has been provided to the complainant as per conditions of warranty and further, company is always ready to provide services to the complainant as per conditions of warranty. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The reliefs sought by the complainant in this complaint are beyond the terms and conditions of warranty and also outside the ambit of section 14(1) of 'Act'. The complainant has sought refund of price of the unit alongwith compensation and costs of litigations, which is clearly beyond the expressed terms and conditions of warranty. In support of their pleadings, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have referred some cases law, reference of which are not necessary at this stage. On merits, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in their preliminary objections as detailed above and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In view of statement suffered by the complainant on 19.9.2019, the name of opposite party No.3 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Opposite party No.4 appeared through its counsel and filed written version. In written version, opposite party No.4 has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous and this complaint has been filed only to harass and humiliate it. The complainant has not come to this court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts from this court. As such, he is not entitled to any relief. Opposite party No.4 is the authorized dealer of the company and he has sold the product of the company and company is liable to pay the warranty of the product. The complaint is time barred. On merits, opposite party No.4 admitted the sale of Air Conditioner and further pleaded that the complainant never visited at its shop after purchase of Air Conditioner. There is no deficiency in service on its part. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill, (Ex.C1); photocopy of detail of calls (Ex.C2); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C8); Photocopy of call details, (Ex.C9) and his affidavit dated 17.9.2019, (Ex.C10). To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavits of Sumit Gulati, (Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/2) and photocopy of warranty conditions, (Ex.OP1/3). Opposite party No.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohit Kumar, (Ex.OP4/1). We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant purchased Air Conditioner from opposite party No.4, manufactured by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on 6.6.2019 and per complainant, he lodged the complaints of cooling problem with opposite party No.1. The details of phone calls, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C9) prove this fact. He has also sent number of e-mails, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C8) to opposite party No.1 regarding defect in his Air Conditioner. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 pleaded in their written version that with regard to the complaint of the complainant regarding the unit, they approached the complainant and reported 'No Cooling' problem in his unit. Their engineer duly checked the unit and found that due to installation of unit by any unauthorized mechanic/engineer, the unit has been installed without vaccume and flushing of the unit. The unit made of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 must be vacuumed and flushed at the time of installation of unit for proper cooling and in the case of complainant, same has not been done, but opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not placed on file any job sheet to prove this fact. The complainant has lodged number of complaints with opposite party Nos.1 and 2, but despite his repeated requests, the problem of his Air Conditioner could not be solved. As such, there is deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. The call details, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C9) and e-mails, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C8) placed on file by the complainant prove that he has lodged the complaints with opposite parties within warranty period of Air Conditioner. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also admitted their liability to provide services to complainant as per conditions of warranty in their written version, but opposite parties have failed to do the needful. Only sale of product should not be the only motive of opposite parties, rather after sale, services are also to be provided by them. It is matter of common knowledge that a person buys a product for the use and enjoyment and if the purchased product is defective, the buyer suffers from mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Therefore, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are liable to provide the services to the complainant. Although, the Air Conditioner was purchased from opposite party No.4 vide invoice, (Ex.C1). Opposite party No.4 has also acted as agent of manufacturing company being its authorized dealer. It cannot be exonerated from its liability. It has to carry out needful on behalf of manufacturing company i.e. principal. The liability of principal and agent is joint and several as there is nothing on record to show that the relationship of opposite party Nos.1 and 4 is on principal to principal basis. Now, question is whether the complainant is entitled to replacement of product with new one or any other relief. The complainant has simply mentioned that there is manufacturing defect. He has not placed on file any expert opinion or cogent evidence to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner, but it is ample clear from the evidence lead by the complainant that Air Conditioner is defective and it is the duty of opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 to repair the Air Conditioner. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4. Opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 are directed to repair the Air Conditioner in question as per warranty terms and conditions. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 26-05-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
(Paramjeet Kaur) Member | |
