Complaint No: 250 of 2019.

                                                        Date of Institution: 01.08.2019.

                                                                    Date of order: 06.12.2023.

Tarsem Singh aged about 37 Years Son of Satnam Singh, resident of Ward No. 4, New Abadi Dhariwal Tehsil & District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143519.

                                                                                                                                                                       …........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                              VERSUS

1.       IFB Industries, Okhla-1, D-60, Pocket A, Okhla Phase-1, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110020.

2.       IFB Industries, Ludhiana, Village Threekay (outside octeroi) C/o Baldev Warehousing Complex, Ludhiana – 141001.

3.       M/s Gurmeet Electronics, Nai Abadi Dhariwal Tehsil & District Gurdaspur, through its Proprietor. Pin Code – 143519.

                                                                                                                                                          ….Opposite parties.

                                                                            Complaint U/s 12 CPA.

Present: For the complainant: Sh.Rajneesh Kaushal, Advocate.

             For the opposite parties No.1 & 2: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.

             Opposite Party No.3: Exparte.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Tarsem Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against IFB Industries Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased an A.C. IFB Split Hitachi Split, 1.0 Ton from the OP No. 3 for a consideration of Rs.33,500/- on dated 06.07.2018 vide Bill / Invoice No. 071 dated 06.07.2018 and installed it in his bedroom. It is further pleaded that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties hence he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It is pleaded that in the month of June 2019 after about 11 months from the date of purchase of this A.C., the A.C. of the complainant started to give trouble and trip after every five minutes and not giving the proper cooling. It is further pleaded that compressor of the A.C. was also not working properly and the complainant made a complaint to the OP No. 3 on dated 20.06.2019 regarding the non-cooling of A.C, but the OP No. 3 made excuses on one pretext to another and asked the complainant to make a complaint to the company directly on Toll Free No. as there is a manufacturing defect in the A.C. It is further pleaded that then the complainant lodged a complaint on Toll Free No. of the company on 04.07.2019 and there after two days, two mechanics of the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant, but they failed to remove the defect of the said A.C. It is further pleaded that the complainant again called on the Toll Free No. 1860 425 5678 / 1860 208 5678 many times but his complaint was not attended by the opposite parties or their Engineer. It is further  pleaded that then the complainant approached the OP No. 3 and asked him to remove his A.C. and pay his entire amount of the A.C. amounting to Rs.33,500/-, but he refused to do so. It is further pleaded that opposite parties had sold the said A.C. to the complainant having manufacturing defect hence, now the complainant is not interested to purchase the said A.C from the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant requested orally so many times to the OP’s No. 1 and 2 on Toll Free No. of the company to remove the manufacturing defective A.C. from the house of the complainant and to pay back the amount of Rs.33,500/- as it is within the guarantee / warranty period but the opposite parties did not bother about the legal and genuine request of the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to remove the said A. C. from the house of the complainant and to make the payment of Rs.33,500/- with 18% interest P.A. from the date of its due till its realization and pay Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and is liable for dismissal. It is further pleaded that complainant has not approached to this Hon'ble District Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material facts in the complaint. It is pleaded that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act, for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. It is further pleaded that complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the opposite parties No.1 & 2. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.1 & 2 i.e. IFB Industries Limited, is a company of longstanding high repute and as a ruse to extract money without just cause or valid reason. It is further pleaded that the appliance, sold to the complainant, is of highest quality and the complainant has taken delivery of the Split Air Conditioner, after PRE-Delivery Inspection and entire satisfaction and fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer, regarding quality and performance of the Split Air Conditioner. It is further pleaded that the Split Air Conditioner in question has been given to the complainant after inspection and his entire satisfaction. It is further pleaded that Split Air Conditioner was sold, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and hence, the complaint be dismissed with cost. It is further pleaded that the complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is must for the complainant to show that the relieves as contemplated under section 14 can be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the complainant. In the present case, it is crystal clear that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Hence, the instant complaint should be dismissed in limine. It is further pleaded that the complainant had prayed for the refund of price, interest thereupon and compensation etc. The prayer of the complainant is beyond the warranty terms. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.1 & 2 had extended LIMITED WARRANTY terms to the complainant. While entertaining and adjudicating the present complaint under the provisions of time bound summary procedure, this Hon'ble District Commission is not vested with powers to go beyond the agreed terms and conditions accepted by the party. It is further pleaded that as such the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that complainant has not suffered from any of the losses for which the complainant is praying for the compensation and or mental agony etc. It is further pleaded that Split Air Conditioner is being utilized by the complainant regularly from the date of purchase of the Split Air Conditioner. It is further pleaded that the relationship between the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and opposite party No. 3 is on principal to principal basis and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 cannot be held liable for any independent act and omission, if any, committed by the other opposite party. It is further pleaded that for the acts of one opposite party, other opposite parties could not be held liable. It is further pleaded that reference may be taken from the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & Anr. (1994) 1, Supreme Court Cases 397, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "reliance has to be placed on the circumstances, documents and conduct of party to prove that the relationship of the party is of 'principal and agent' or of one of 'principal to principal' basis. In the instant case on the basis of the facts of the case, it was held that the relationship of the party is on 'principal to principal' basis. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not experienced problems in the Split A.C in the month of June, 2019. The complainant has not placed on record any supporting documents to establish that the complaint was lodged with the answering opposite parties No.1 and 2 in the month of June, 2019. It is further pleaded that on receipt of the complaint / request the computer system installed by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are generating SMS and sending ticket number immediately to the caller / customers. On 04.07.2019 the opposite parties No.1 and 2 received request from the complainant against ticket No. 1003472460 on the last day of warranty. Request of the complainant was promptly attended after getting appointment from the complainant. It is further pleaded that Technician deputed by the OP’s No.1 and 2 visited to the house of the complainant and during inspection it was found that 16 Amp. MCB installed with the electricity meter was short and Technician requested the complainant to get the said electrical part i.e. MCB replaced from the electrician. It is further pleaded that complainant was under obligation to make arrangement of electricity supply to the appliance and the said electrician job was not covered under the limited warranty / terms of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the Technician visited house of the complainant on dated 04.07.2019 and told the complainant that he will again visit on 06.07.2019 for checking working of A.C. after MCB job. Compressor of the A.C. is working properly and defective compressor cannot give cooling at all. It is further pleaded that the Technician visited house of the Complainant on 06.07.2019 to check the performance of A.C. After about 30 minutes of operation no problem was observed in the said A.C. and no adjustment was required and A.C. was giving proper cooling. It is further pleaded that the A.C. is working fine and the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the cost of the A.C. The appliance is not suffering from the manufacturing defects.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 17.09.2019.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarsem Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Johri, (Executive Taxation of IFB Industries Ltd., Mohali) as Ex.OP-1,2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2/1 to Ex.OP-1,2/3.

7.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

8.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

9.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one Split Air Conditioner from opposite party No.3 manufactured by opposite parties No.1 and 2. It is further argued that in the month of June 2019 the air conditioner stopped giving cooling and the compressor was not working properly. It is further argued that complainant had lodged complaint with opposite party No.3 but was advised to approach toll free number of the company. Accordingly complaint was lodged by complainant on toll free number on 04.07.2019. It is further argued that technician of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 came to the house of the complainant but failed to rectify the defect in the air conditioner. The sale of defective air conditioner and failure to remove the defect amounts to deficiency in service.

10.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has argued that one day prior to expiry of warranty complainant had lodged complaint with the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and the technician found that 16 Amp. MCB installed with the electricity meter was short and after replacement of MCB the A.C. was checked by the technician and was found to be giving cooling and as such there is no deficiency in service. It is further argued that the relationship between the opposite party No.3 and opposite parties No.1 and 2 is on principle to principle basis. As such liability if any is of opposite party No.3.

11.     Opposite party No.3 remained exparte.

12.     It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased one Split Air Conditioner from opposite party No.3 manufactured by opposite parties No.1 and 2. It is further admitted fact that within the warranty period the said A.C. stopped giving cooling. It is further admitted fact that complaint was lodged with toll free number on 04.07.2019. The disputed issues for adjudication before this Commission are i) whether the defect in the A.C. was rectified. ii) Whether the defect in the A.C. is manufacturing defect or the complainant is entitled for replacement of air conditioner or refund of the amount.

13.     Perusal of record i.e. messages Ex.C4 shows that complainant had lodged complaint with opposite parties No.1 and 2 within warranty period and thereafter complainant had made various phone calls to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 the detail of which is Ex.C5 but the calls made by the complainant were not attended by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 till 10.07.2019. On the other hand opposite parties No.1 and 2 have placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.OP-1,2/2 and Ex.OP-1,2/3 as per which 16 Amp. MCB was short and on repair the A.C. started giving proper cooling. However, perusal of job sheet Ex.OP-1,2/3 shows that there is no satisfaction note signed by the complainant in respect of service rendered by the technician of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and job sheet Ex.OP-1,2/3 has been unilaterally issued by opposite parties No.1 and 2. We are of the view that since the complainant has spent amount for his comfort and if the basic purpose of giving cooling is not being provided by the A.C. in that case it amounts to deficiency in service. As the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have even failed to rectify the defect and attend the calls of the complainant. As far as plea of the complainant for replacement of A.C. is concerned. We are of the view that none of the parties have placed on record any report of technical expert to prove this fact that said A.C. is having manufacturing defect. As such prayed for replacement of A.C. and refund the amount is declined.

14.     Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to repair the A.C. of the complainant. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.     

15.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

16.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President  

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Dec. 06, 2023                                                Member

*YP*