Complainant Abhishek Kapahi has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective Air Conditioner or to take back the defective A.C. and to refund full price of same alongwith 12% P.A. interest from the date of purchase till actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.5,000/-/Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased one Onida Split Air Conditioner 1 Ton INV from opposite party no.1 for Rs.28,000/- vide invoice/bill dated 11.07.2018. The A.C. was defective one on account of manufacturing defects and the same started giving troubles from the day of its installation. Cooling of the AC was not proper and even there were number of other defects in the same. He lodged complaints time and again with the opposite parties and on number of times, the mechanics of the opposite party visited his house and tried its level best to remove the defects, but of no use. Even the mechanics of the opposite party orally told that A.C. is not repairable due to manufacturing defects, but they did not give anything in writing. Now the A.C. in question is totally out of working condition since 20.06.2019. The complainant also lodged complaint No.285 with opposite party no.3 but of no use. He also pleaded that inordinate delay in the replacement of the defective AC and delay/failure in removing the defect from the A.C. in question is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. On merits, it was submitted that complainant never lodged any complaint with the opposite party no.1 and he did not know about manufacturing defects or any complaint was lodged with opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.1 had sold the best AC to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 was not responsible for giving any loss to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 was not liable to pay any compensation as alleged and also not liable to replace the AC. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that there is no entity by the name Onida Care Centre and hence for misjoinder of party the complaint requires to be dismissed; the bill of purchase is an invalid since no CGST, SGST is mentioned in the invoice despite the purchase in GST tax regime; the warranty card was not annexed and hence the complaint is required to be dismissed on this ground and complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that there is no proof of payment submitted or annexed by the complainant. The bill of purchase is an invalid bill since no CGST, SGST is mentioned in the invoice despite the purchase being in GST tax regime. The engineer of Rajan Gill had carried out inspection and informed that the ODU PCB is required to be replaced to restore functioning of the product but the complainant was adamant for replacement and hence the complainant product remained to be restored to functionality and hence for the acts and omissions on part of the complainant the opposite party no.2 cannot be faulted with. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
5. Two Rejoinders filed by the complainant.
6. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C1 to Ex.C21.
7. Alongwith the written statement, opposite party no.2 has filed affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar, ASM, Onida Company, Branch Office, Jalandhar Ex.oP-2/1.
8. Written arguments filed on behalf of opposite party no.2.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
10. Ex.C-1, the photocopy of the Invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one ONIDA A.C. 1 Ton from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.5975 dated 11.7.2018 for a sum of Rs.28,000/-. Ex.OP-2/1 is the affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar, ASM ONIDA Company, Branch Office, Jalandhar, in which he has stated that on information after sales service provider, engineer of Rajan Gill had carried out inspection and informed that ODU PCB was required to replaced to restore functioning of the product, but the complainant was adamant for replacement and hence the complainant product remained to be restored to functionality and hence for the acts and omission on the part of the complainant, the opposite party no.2 cannot be faulted with.
11. In the present case, opposite partyno.2 has specifically admitted in its written statement also that as per the information after sales service provider, engineer carried out inspection and detected that the ODU PCB required replacement to make the AC functional. But the complainant was adamant for the replacement of the product. It shows that the opposite parties were ready to rectify the defect by replacing the ODU PCB but the complainant was adamant for the replacement of the product with a new one which the opposite parties was not ready.
12. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to opposite party no.1 and 2 to rectify the problem by replacing the ODU PCB of the A.C. with a new one and also to remove any other defect in the said A.C. and make it functional without charging any amount from the complainant. If that is not possible to replace the A.C. in question with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty. Opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance file be consigned.
(Neelam Gupta)
President
Announced: (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)
2nd September, 2021 Member
*MK*
