| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 229 of 02-09-2019 Decided on : 18-11-2021 Sudhir Kumar aged about 40 years, S/o Sh. Buta Ram, R/o House No. 3259, Street No. 1/A, S.A.S Nagar, Surkhpir Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Mini DX, Shop No. 2, 3 Clock Tower Complex, 100 Ft. Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/Authorized Person Adev Electronics, # 19416 Street No. 3, Bibi Wala Road, Dr. Bakshi Wali Gali, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Person Havells India Limited, Registered Office : 904, Surya Kiran Building, K.G. Marg, new Delhi 110 001, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory
.......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. N K Goyal, Advocate. For opposite parties : OP No. 1 & 2 exparte Sh. Kuldeep Singla, counsel for OP No. 3 ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Sudhir Kumar (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 Reliance Retail Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Lloyd split A.C., manufactured by opposite party No. 3 from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.29,870/- vide Invoice dated 9-04-2019 for his personal use. At the time of selling the said air conditioner, opposite party No.1 conveyed the complainant that they will install the air conditioner at the residence of complainant free of cost and also assured him that the said air conditions is of best quality and gave one year full Guarantee/Warranty. The opposite party No. 1 further assured that in case of any defect in air conditioner the same will be rectified free of cost and if same could not be rectified, then the air conditioner will be replaced with new one immediately or its price will be refunded. It is alleged after purchasing the air conditioner, mechanic/engineers of the opposite parties visited the house of complainant and installed the same. After installation, complainant observed that air conditioner is not giving proper cooling and the purpose, for which he purchased the said air conditioner could not be served. The complainant approached opposite party No. 1 and lodged a complaint. On 10-05-2019, mechanic/ engineer of opposite party No.2 (service centre of the company) visited the house of complainant and tried to remove the defect in the air conditioner, but failed to do so. However, complainant signed the job sheet issued by the opposite parties under protest as he was not satisfied with the services of opposite parties. The mechanic/engineer of opposite party No. 2 requested the complainant to use the air conditioner for some days and assured him that in case problem is not solved, they will replace the air conditioner with new one. Thereafter, complainant used the air conditioner for some days and observed that there is same problem of cooling. The complainant also noticed that air conditioner consumes electricity units in excess. The complainant again lodged complaints with opposite parties and mechanic/engineer of opposite party No. 2 visited the house of complainant on 14-06-2019 and 17-06-2019 and tried their best efforts to remove the defect in the said air conditioner but failed to remove the same. However, they issued Job Sheets mentioning therein that AC working OK although the defect could not be removed. The Job Sheets issued by opposite parties were signed by complainant under protest. It is alleged that mechanic/engineer of opposite party No. 1 suggested the complainant to check the cooling after partition of room where the said air conditioner is installed, although at the time of installation, mechanic/engineer of opposite parties did not raised any objection. However, as suggested by the opposite parties, the complainant made partition in the room but even thereafter there was same problem of cooling and excess electricity consumption. It is further alleged that complaint was again lodged with opposite parties and mechanic/engineer of opposite party No. 2 visited the house of complainant on 25-6-2019. He tried his best to rectify the defect but failed to do so and conveyed the complainant that there is some manufacturing defect in the said air conditioner which cannot be rectified in any manner. He issued Job Sheet to complainant which he signed under protest. It is also alleged that thereafter complainant approached opposite parties No. 1 & 2 time and again and requested them to replace the said air conditioner with new one or refund its price, but to no effect. The complainant also sent e-mails to opposite parties in this regard, but all in vain. It is pleaded that said act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant is suffering mental tension, harassment, humiliation and financial loss and as such, he is entitled to compensation alongwith litigation expenses. As the air conditioner is still under guarantee/warranty, the opposite parties are liable to refund its price. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the price of air condition i.e. Rs. 29,870/- alonwith upto date interest and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation alonwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. The opposite party No. 3 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 3 raised preliminary objections that complainant has not produced on file any expert opinion/report to prove manufacturing defect. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint and he has suppressed the material facts from this Commssion. It is pleaded that the actual facts of the case are that the complainant purchased said Lloyd Split AC on 02-04-2019 with the warranty of one year. The AC was installed in good condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant lodged complaint regarding low cooling and the service engineer of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant and he found that the area of the room is 144 Sq. ft. and that the cool air of the AC is leaking out from the room through various spaces like from doors and windows etc. which is improperly closed. The opposite party No. 3 recommends one ton AC for a room of size upto 100 Sq. Ft. area and that for proper cooling in an area of 144 Sq. Ft a 1.5 ton AC is needed and that the present AC is under capacity for the same. The service engineer also took on site photographs and noted down detailed parameters regarding technical specifications of the AC on the job sheet. The said fact was fully explained to the complainant very well, but he is adamant for replacement of AC, which is against the warranty terms and conditions of the said AC. That even though the AC of the complainant is working properly as per last inspection of the AC, the opposite party No. 3 is still ready to check and repair the AC (if any defect is found) subject to warranty terms and conditions. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 has admitted that complaint was lodged regarding cooling and their service engineer visited the premises of complainant on 10-05-2019 and found that the area of the room is excess and the cooling of the room is leaking out from the room through various spaces like from doors and windows which is not closed. It is submitted that AC of the complainant was working perfectly fine and no defect was found in it. It is denied that service engineer of the opposite party offered any replacement of the AC to the complainant. It is pleaded that AC is working properly and does not consume electricity units in excess. The AC is BEE (Bureau of Energy Efficiency) compliant and the electricity consumption is only as per star ratings displayed on the packaging of the said AC. After receiving the complaint from the complainant, the service engineers of the opposite party again visited the premises of the complainant and found that the AC was working perfectly, but still, complainant is adamant for replacement of the AC. It is pleaded that as and when any complaint was received from the complainant, service engineers of opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and found AC to be working properly. The AC, does not have any manufacturing defect. The complainant has made complaints again and again just to gain wrongfully from opposite party No. 3 and for malicious reasons, but as a goodwill gesture, opposite party has never denied him services and have always sent their service engineers to resolve the issue and satisfy the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint. To support his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 29-8-2019 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Job Sheets (Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No. 3 has tendered into affidavit datefd 25-10-2019 of Harsh Aggarwal (Ex. OP-3/1), affidavit dated 25-10-2019 of Roma Arora (Ex. OP-3/2) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and gone through the record carefully. These are undisputed facts of the parties that complainant purchased Lloyd split A.C., manufactured by opposite party No. 3 from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.29,870/- vide Invoice dated 9-04-2019 (Ex. C-2). The complainant lodged complaints regarding cooling problem with opposite parties and they sent their mechanic/engineer to solve the problem on 10-5-2010, 12-6-2019 and 25-6-2019 (Job Sheets Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6). As per version of complainant since there was no proper cooling of the AC in question, the complaints were lodged with opposite parties on 10-5-2019, 12,6,2019 and 25-6-2019. Service Engineer of the opposite parties visited his premises as per Job Sheet (Ex. C-3, C-4 & C-6) but failed to rectify the defects. The pleading of the opposite parties is that area of the room where AC in question is installed is 144 Sq. ft. and that the cool air of the AC is leaking out from the room through various spaces like from doors and windows etc. which is improperly closed and that for proper cooling in an area of 144 Sq. Ft a 1.5 ton AC is needed, so the present AC is under capacity for the same. A perusal of Job Sheet (Ex C-3) reveals that before signing the Job Sheet complainant has given a note that Service Engineer tried hard to get proper cooling. Spent 5 hours to get proper cooling but unit is not supporting. The complainant has mentioned that he is not satisfied with cooling and needs replacement of unit. Thereafter complainant again lodged complaint on 12-6-2019 with opposite parties and vide Job Sheet (Ex. C-4) service engineer again visited the premises of the complainant. It is clearly mentioned against the column Fault Found – No Cooling. The complainant has also given remarks/note on this Job sheet that he is not satisfed with cooling problem. As per Job Sheet (Ex. C-5) also, on 17-6-2019 fault found was - No cooling. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the cooling of the AC, he again lodged complaint with the opposite parties on 25-6-2019. Vide Job Sheet (Ex. C-6), service engineer visited the premises of the complainant but again unable to rectify the defect and opined that there is installation problem. The complainant has again given note on this job sheet that there is consumption of higher electricity and cooling is low. Admittedly, as detailed above, service engineer of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant on 10-5-2019, 12-6-2019, 17-6-2019 and then on 25-6-2019. If the cooling problem was due to size of room, there was no reason for visiting the premises of the complainant by service engineer again and again and trying to retify the defect. There is no remark on any of the Job Sheet that cooling problem is due to size of room. The complainant has pleaded in his para No. 6 of his complaint, that as suggested by the opposite parties, he made partition in this said room and this version of complainant is not specifically denied by opposite party No. 3 in written reply. Moreover, AC was got installed by the opposite parties themselves in the house of complainant and being expert, they would have advised the complainant not to install this AC. Further opposite parties have not brought on file any document showing areawise cooling capacity of air conditioners. The complainant purchased the AC in question on 9-4-2019 by spending an amount of Rs. 29,870/- but during whole summer season, he could not avail the facility for which he spent money, due to fault of the opposite parties. The AC became defective just after one month of its purchase. It was within warranty/guarantee but opposite parties neither repaired the same nor replaced it. Complainant cannot be left in lurch and waiting for indefinite period. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling the defective product to consumer/complainant which has manufacturing defect. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to refund to complainant Rs. 29,870/- (price of AC) with interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. (9-4-2019 date of purchase) till payment . The complainant is directed to return the AC in question to opposite parties on receipt of above said payment. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 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:- 18-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
