Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/67/2021

Mr. P. Aravind, No.2 A, 89, Shakethapuri Apartments, T. Nagar, Chennai 17. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Ganapath Electronics, Rep by its Manager, New No. 13, Old No. 7, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar, Chennai 82. A - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. N. Panneerselvam

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

 

BEFORE        Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL        MEMBER

 

 

F.A. No.67/2021

(Against the Order dt.24.01.2020 in C.C. No.94/2018 on the file of the

                                                    D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North))      

 

DATED THE 15^th  DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

 

Mr. P. Aravind,

No.2-A, 89, Shakethapuri Apartment,

Manoharan Street,

South West Boag Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                      .. Appellant/ Complainant.

 

 

                                  -Vs-

 

1. Ganapath Electronic,

Represented by its Manager,

New No.13, Old No.7,

Ramamoorhty Colony Main Road,

Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar,

Chennai – 600 082.

 

2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Regional Manager,

A Wing 3^rd Floor D-3 District Centre,

Saket,

New Delhi – 110 017.                                                  .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant/ Complainant                     : M/s. N. Paneer Selvam

Counsel for Respondents / Opposite parties        : M/s. T.R. Kumaravel

          

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today on 14.03.2023 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order in open court :-

ORDER

Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER             

          This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / complainant as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) in C.C. No.94/2018 dt.24.01.2020.

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a LG Split A/c and it became faulty and hence, he approached the 1^st opposite party on 14.07.2016.  On 14.07.2016, the 1^st opposite party sent a mechanic and he serviced the said A/c and Rs.575/- had been received by the 1^st opposite party towards charges.   But the a/c did not work.  Hence again on 16.07.2016, the mechanic visited the complainant’s house and attended the fault and collected Rs.5857/-.   Again, the machine was not working.   Again for the third time on 17.10.2016, the 1^st opposite party mechanic attended the complainant’s a/c fault and collected Rs.635/-.   This time also, the a/c did not work.   Then again for the 4^th time the 1^st opposite party mechanic attend the fault of  the complainant’s a/c and collected 575/- as charges.    Even after this repeated complaints and repeated services, the a/c was  not functioning and hence the opposite party committed deficiency in service.  So this complaint is filed claiming Rs.27,642/- towards refund of the A/c and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant  and cost of the proceedings.

2.         The opposite party in their written version has stated that the A/c was purchased on 10.04.2013 and after the warranty period, the complainant has made the complaint and the Engineer inspected the A/c on 14.07.2016 for which, he received charges of Rs.575/-.  At the time of inspection, it was found that the A/c condenser was defective and it was replaced and gas was refilled for which, Rs.5,857/- was charged.  The Newly fitted condenser unit was having warranty for 1 year.  But before the warranty period the condenser failed.  So, the mechanic without any additional charges replaced the condenser and received only a sum of Rs.575/- and on 03.05.2017, a regular maintenance was done.    At that time, the evaporation coil was found defective and a quotation was given by the opposite parties.   But the complainant has failed to pay the amount and also after sending legal notices filed this complaint which is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service. 

3.         Before the District Commission, both sides filed their proof affidavits and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked. After analysing the entire materials, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.  Aggrieved over the same, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant for the following grounds:-

The Order of the District Commission is erroneous and the District Commission failed to consider the documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.  Moreover, the District Commission failed to note that the A/c machine has mechanical defects continuously and it was repaired by the opposite party continuously which itself proved the deficient nature of service.  Hence, the appellant prayed this Commission to allow the appeal.

4.         Both sides filed their written arguments and we heard arguments of learned Counsels.   Both learned Counsels reiterated what they have submitted in their written arguments.  

5.         Now, the point for consideration is:-

Whether the repeated services made by the opposite party proved their deficiency or not?

6.         On point:-

As per the case of opposite party, the A/c was purchased as early as on 10.04.2013 and it was not denied by the complainant specifically during the time of filing affidavit or at the time of arguments.  However, the complainant impliedly admitted that only after the lapse of the warranty period, the A/c became defective. So the alleged defects in the A/c arose only after 3 years of functioning.    The fault in the complainant’s A/c was attended by the opposite party on 14.07.2016, 16.07.2016, 17.10.2016, 03.05.2017 & 01.07.2017.  It is the main contention of the complainant that evenafter  the number of services attended by the opposite party, the A/c problem was not rectified and it amounts to deficiency in service.   On the other hand, the opposite party submitted that visiting the complainant’s house for ascertaining the defects as well as for doing normal service cannot be treated repeated attending of faults.

7.         On perusal of records, we found that on 14.07.2016, the opposite party charged Rs.575/- only for inspection purposes and to ascertain the nature of defects.  After getting concurrence on 16.07.2016, the opposite party has replaced the condenser coil which cost Rs.3,557/- and Rs.1,725/- for gas charging and Rs.575/- other charges for transportation totally Rs.5,857/-.  So as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2, the above mentioned defects has been rectified in the complainant’s A/c.  It is the case of the complainant that the said A/c became non-functioning and the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.635/- as service charges but no repair works has been carried out as evidenced from the Job Card Ex.A3.  Again the complainant has made a complaint with the opposite party and it was detected as the evaporation coil was found defective.   But the complainant did not accept for the replacement of the evaporation coil and asked the replacement , free of cost.  But the opposite party did not accept for the replacement of the evaporation coil at free of cost.

8.         From the above narration, we conclude that the complainant did not allege any manufacturing defect in the A/c.   Moreover, the A/c functioned for more than 3 years which proves that it was not having any manufacturing defect.  The warranty for the parts were also extinguished by the lapse of time and that the opposite party attended to the complainant’s request for 4 times in which, only one time he repaired and replaced the condenser and gas filling had been made and after the rectification of the defects, the said A/c worked for more than 6 months and only new defect with regard to the evaporator coil was found.   The earlier defects were rectified to the satisfaction of the customer.  So, we confirm the finding of the District Commission that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and the above finding did not warrant our interference.   Hence, the appeal is dismissed but there is no order as to cost.

 

 

9.       In the result,

1. This appeal is dismissed.
2. The Order dt.24.01.2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) made in C.C. No.94/2018 is hereby confirmed.
3. There is no order as to costs.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER

    (RVP)                                                                                         (S.K.)

 

KIR /TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023.