By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER.
The averments of the complainant are in brief:-
1. On 08/04/2024, the complainant had purchased an air conditioner from the first opposite party and the same was installed on 15/04/2024 by the technicians of second opposite party. The product was manufactured by the second opposite party. From the very beginning, the complainant had found that the performance of air conditioner was not in par with assurance given by the opposite parties. Hence on 06/05/2024 a complaint was made before the first opposite party. On the basis advice given by the first opposite party power supply system was inspected, but nothing found wrong with it. On 09/05/2024, the complainant had again contacted the first opposite party and registered a complaint. But details of registration of complaint was not given by the first opposite party. After 2 days, the complainant again contacted the first opposite party. On 16/05/2024, though the technician of the service centre had contacted the complainant, but no equipments were carried with them for rectification. Hence on 18/05/2024, the complainant again contacted the manager of the first opposite party for rectification work. Finally the technicians came and inspected the product. It was concluded by the technician that the product had suffered manufacturing defect. So the complainant contacted the second opposite party for replacement. But no action was taken by the second opposite party to replace the defective product. It is pleaded that the complainant had contacted for more than 30 times to get replaced the defective air conditioner. The complainant purchased the air conditioner in order to get relief from the hot climate. But due to defect of the air conditioner, no purpose was served. The acts of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 38,734/- as cost of the product and refund Rs. 250/- as cost incurred as installation charge. It is also pleaded that the complainant and her four month aged new born baby was also suffered inconvenience due to malfunctioning of the product. So the complainant also claimed compensation.
2. The Commission issued notices to the opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties received notices and submitted written version separately opposing pleading of deficiency in service.
3. The first opposite party contended that they are not a necessary party in this proceedings and the manufacturer is responsible to answer the question of deficiency in service. According to the first opposite party, they are dealer of the second opposite party and the second opposite party is held with liability related to services of the product. The sale of product is conducting in accordance with the instruction of the manufacturer. The first opposite party admitted purchase of the product by the complainant. According to the first opposite party, warranty, quality and other services are offered by the manufacturer as per condition stipulated in warranty card and the manufacturer is bound to provide the promised services and the only duty of the first opposite party is to inform the complaints to the manufacturer. The first opposite party contented that there is no vicarious liability to them. There was no compulsion from the side of the first opposite party to purchase the product of the second opposite party. The purchase was made by the complainant after convincing features and specifications of the product. It is averred that details of service provided by the second opposite party is not known to the first opposite party. The first opposite party denied all allegations that installation done by the technician of the first opposite party was improper, the working quality of the air conditioner was deteriorated day by day, voltage was checked , electricians checked , requested to register a complaint, even after registration of complaint no action was taken in 48 hours etc as false. It is admitted by the first opposite party that they had received complaint of no cooling and issue was raised properly before service centre of the second opposite party. According to the first opposite party the technician of the service centre had properly inspected the product with sufficient equipments . It is contended that they had duly informed complaint raised by the complainant to the service centre. The allegation of misbehaviour by the staff of first opposite party is denied. The first opposite party never repaired the product purchased by the complainant and no delay was occurred in attending the complaints. The complainant did not contact the first opposite party for replacement of the product and there is no basis for demand of replacement. According to the first opposite party, there is no manufacturing defect to the product. The first opposite party did not commit deficiency in service, hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the first opposite party. The first opposite party has admitted that one year warranty was provided to the product. On the basis of above made contention the first opposite party stood for dismissal of complaint.
4. The second opposite party, Carrier Media India Private Limited is a company represented by authorised person named Mr. Akhil .P.S. before this Commission. The second opposite party denied all allegations levelled against them. The complainant has supressed material facts in the complaint. It is contented that the complainant did not produce any document to prove allegation of manufacturing defect as well as deficiency in service. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased the product with one year comprehensive warranty. The second opposite party is liable only to repair or replace the defective part, if any. The warranty does not provide for replacement of the product. On 09/05/2024 the complainant had contacted customer care centre of the second opposite party with complaint of loss of cooling. According to the second opposite party, they had deployed technicians for inspection of complaint and its resolution. After inspection, technician found gas leakage from the condenser coil. So gas charging and repair work were suggested free of cost. It is contended that the technician of the second opposite party cannot be expected to be carrying all the machines for all possible issues that may arise in an air conditioner for every visit. On 18/5/2024 the service team of the second opposite party had approached the complainant to carry out repair work. But the complainant denied the opportunity for repair work instead asked for replacement. Later, through conciliation, the complainant had agreed for replacement of part and the same installed by the service team of the second opposite party. According to the second opposite party, presently the air conditioner is working perfectly without any defect. It is further contended that all repair works were carried out without any delay. The second opposite party denied that the complainant had requested for services for multiple times from them. It is contended that delay in repair work was caused due to the adamant nature of the complainant. The second opposite party is liable to act upon terms and conditions of warranty, hence the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
5. The complainant and the first opposite party have submitted proof affidavits in lieu of evidence. The complainant produced documents and marked as Ext. A1 to Ext. A3 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of registration of complaint through online portal of the second opposite party. Ext.A2 series documents are the copies of call history to show the communication made by the complainant with the second opposite party. Ext.A3 document is the copy of tax invoice to show purchase of air conditioner from the first opposite party. The documents produced by the first opposite party is marked as Ext. B1 series document. Ext. B1 series documents are the copies of email communication made between the opposite parties. The second opposite party did not submit proof affidavit. Hence there is no evidence from the side of the second opposite party.
6. Heard the complainant and the first opposite party in detail. The Commission examined documents and affidavits thoroughly. The points arose for consideration are following:-
- Whether the opposite parties are answerable to the allegations of deficiency in service?
- If yes, Relief and cost?
7.Point No.(i):-
In the complaint, it is averred that air conditioner purchased from the first opposite party became defective as it was affected with low cooling from the nearest date of its installation onwards and thereby it failed to keep specifications and standards assured by the opposite parties. It is argued by the complainant that she had constantly contacted the opposite parties to get rectified the defect of the product, but the opposite parties negligently treated requests of the complainant . It is also argued by the complainant that air conditioner was purchased for getting relief from hot climate condition, but due to defects of the product, she could make use of it as per assured quality. Hence, the complainant and her new born child suffered inconvenience.
8. The first opposite party admitted purchase of air conditioner by the complainant and also admitted that they had received complaint of no cooling on 09/05/2024 from the side of the complainant. It is argued that there is no manufacturing defect to the product and all liabilities under warranty are laid upon the second opposite party. According to the first opposite party, they had properly informed the second opposite party all issues related to the product in time. Moreover, details of service provided by the second opposite party is not known to them.
9. The Commission find that the complainant has purchased air conditioner from the first opposite party on 08/04/2024 and the same was installed on 15/04/2024. The complainant has produced Ext. A3 document in that regard. It has come out in evidence that the subject product had been suffered defect at the very beginning of its use. The first opposite party also admitted that a complaint of no cooling was reported by the complainant on 09/5/2024 itself and the same was forwarded to the second opposite party for rectification work. The specific case of the complainant is that the product was purchased exclusively for getting relief from hot climate, but no purpose was served due to its defects. The Commission consider the argument of the complainant with regard to performance of the product as well as service provided by the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the product.
10. The opposite parties admitted that the product purchased by the complainant carried one year comprehensive warranty. It has come out in evidence that low cooling was resulted due to leakage of gas from condenser coil. It is also admitted in evidence rendered by the complainant that technician of the second opposite party came and replaced the defective part of subject air conditioner on 12/06/2024 i.e., after filing of this complaint. The Commission find that a considerable delay had occurred on the part of the second opposite party in providing service of rectification. It has come out in evidence through Ext. A1 and Ext. A2 series documents that the complainant had made persistent attempts to get redressed his grievance from the second opposite party under warranty service . Ext. A1 document would show that the service request was made on 23/05/2024 and thereafter the complainant had continuously contacted the second opposite party. Ext. A2 series documents are the details of call history which reveal communication made by the complainant with respect to defect of the product. It has also come out in evidence that details of service provided by the second opposite party is not known to the first opposite party. So the Commission find that even though complaint was reported on 09/05/2024 itself, no proper action was taken by the second opposite party until 12/06/2024. So the very purpose of purchase of the subject product became abortive causing mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence the act of delayed service on the part of the second opposite party is amounted to deficiency in service. At the same time, the Commission also find that there is no role to the first opposite party in the act of deficiency in service. The contentions of the first opposite party that they had duly informed all the grievances of the complainant to the second opposite party is found trustworthy. It is true that all the services related to warranty are held with manufacturer, the second opposite party. In addition, it has come out through Ext. B1 series documents that the first opposite party had constantly contacted with the second opposite party to resolve all issues related to subject air conditioner. Moreover, the complainant did not challenge the veracity of Ext. B1 series documents. So the first opposite party is exonerated from all liabilities.
11. Point No. (ii):-
There is no evidence available before this Commission to prove that air conditioner manufactured by the second opposite party is suffered manufacturing defect. It has come out in evidence that defective part of the air conditioner has already been replaced during the pendency of this complaint. But it is successfully proved by the complainant that the second opposite party has committed deficiency in service in providing time bound services to rectify the defects of the product. It is also evident that acts of the second opposite party has caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence the second opposite party is liable to pay a reasonable compensation to the complainant. The Commission consider that the second opposite party is liable to pay Rs.30,000/-to the complainant as compensation. Moreover, the complainant was compelled to approach this Commission due to deficient service of the second opposite party. Hence the second opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as cost litigation. On the basis of above made deliberations, the Commission allow the complaint in the following manner:-
- The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty
thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the acts of
deficiency in service.
- The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of litigation.
The Second opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of of this order otherwise entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till the date of realisation.
Dated this 30th day of October, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1 : Document is the copy of registration of complaint through online portal of
the second opposite party.
Ext.A2 : Series documents are the copies of call history to show the communication
made by the complainant with the second opposite party.
Ext.A3 : Document is the copy of tax invoice to show purchase of air conditioner from
the first opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1
Ext. B1 : Series documents are the copies of email communication made between the
opposite parties.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
