DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

                                                         Dated this the 30^th day of October   2024                                                                                             

  Filed on: 13.05.2022

PRESENT

Shri. D.B.Binu                                                                                                  President

Shri. V.Ramachandran                                                                                    Member

Smt. Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                                        Member     

CC No. 248 of 2022

COMPLAINANT

A. A. Abdul Rasheed Haji, S/o Late A.V Abdul Khader, Areepparath House, PRA97, Vennala PO, PIN: 682028

(Complainant Rep. By. Adv. Mishal M. Dasan, Karippaparambil Associates, HB 48, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin- 682026)

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY

1) BISMI APPLIANCES NEAR INTERNATIONAL STADIUM KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN:- 682017

2) IDEAAL GODAREJ SMART CARE 72/1836 XLIV 1530 SOUHRIDA PATHA ASHOK ROAD, KALOOR, PIN: 682017

3. GODAREJ COMPANY ONE 4 FLOOR, PIROJSHANAGAR EASTERN EXPRESS, HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI EAST MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1)       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant purchased a Godrej air conditioner from the first opposite party on March 1, 2018, along with an additional three-year extended service plan by paying the required amount. However, the complainant alleges that the service provided by the second opposite party, Ideal Smart Care, was poor and unresponsive. Despite several service requests, technicians from the second opposite party were unreliable and often provided incomplete service.

In 2022, when the complainant requested a paid service, a technician named Shihab inspected the unit, charged ₹650, and mentioned that the compressor was faulty. He promised that another technician would come for further inspection. A second technician later arrived and confirmed that the compressor needed to be taken for repair at their facility, assuring the complainant that they would return soon with the necessary equipment. However, even after a week, there was no follow-up. Upon further inquiry, the complainant was informed that stock shortages were causing delays, but the service was not completed even after a month.

Frustrated by the inaction, the complainant tried contacting the manager, but no response was received. Following Ramadan, on May 4, 2022, the complainant lodged a complaint at the Palarivattom Police Station. However, even after a week, no action was taken. Both opposite parties are located within a 2 km radius of the police station, adding to the complainant’s frustration.

The complainant claims that the opposite parties' negligence caused severe inconvenience and distress during the 2022 summer, particularly affecting him and his family during Ramadan. As relief, the complainant seeks:

Installation of a new air conditioner.

₹25,000 compensation for mental agony and inconvenience.

₹2,000 reimbursement for case-related expenses.

The complainant requests that the complaint be admitted and appropriate action taken against the opposite parties.

2. NOTICE:

The Commission issued notice to the opposite parties, but they failed to file their versions within the statutory period and were consequently set ex-parte.

3. Evidence:

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with 14 documents. The documents in the complaint are marked as Exhibits A1 to A14.

1. Exhibit A1: True copy of the Taxable Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party, dated 01.03.2018.
2. Exhibit A2: True copy of the Taxable Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party, dated 01.03.2018.
3. Exhibit A3: True copy of the Field Cash Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party, dated 01.04.2022.
4. Exhibit A4: True copy of the Acknowledgment Receipt of the petition issued by Palarivattom Police Station, dated 04.05.2022.
5. Exhibit A5: True copy of the petition filed by the complainant at Palarivattom Police Station, dated 04.05.2022.
6. Exhibit A6: True copy of the Visa of the complainant.
7. Exhibit A7: True copy of the Insurance Policy of the complainant.
8. Exhibit A8: True copy of the Flight Ticket.
9. Exhibit A9: True copy of the Train Ticket dated 30.04.2022.
10. Exhibit A10: True copy of the Train Ticket dated 27.04.2022.
11. Exhibit A11: True copy of the Call History details from 02.04.2022 to 21.04.2022.
12. Exhibit A12: True copy of the Train Ticket of the complainant, dated 23.04.2022.
13. Exhibit A13: True copy of the Call History of the complainant with the 1st opposite party from 02.04.2022 to 21.04.2022.
14. Exhibit A14: True copy of the Call History of the complainant with the counsel of the 3rd opposite party from 01.03.2022 to 22.11.2022.

4. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT NOTES ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLINANT

1. Purchase and Warranty
   • Two air conditioners (ACs) were purchased on 1st March 2018 from the first opposite party, a third-party company.
   • A three-year warranty was provided, expiring in March 2021.
2. Paid Service After Warranty Expiry
   • After the warranty expired, the Complainant opted for extended paid service, paying a significant amount as per the first opposite party demand.
   • However, the service from 2018 to 2022 was unsatisfactory.
3. Service Attempts and Compressor Issues
   • In 2022, due to continued poor service, the Complainant contacted the first opposite party to arrange service under the extended plan.
   • The second opposite party, the service agency, was assigned the task.
     • They serviced one AC but reported that the second AC’s compressor was faulty.
     • They assured the Complainant that another team would arrive to resolve the compressor issue.
4. Compressor Taken, but No Repair
   • On 2nd April 2022, another service team visited the Complainant's residence and removed the compressor from the second AC for inspection.
   • Upon follow-up via phone, the technicians informed the Complainant that the compressor would be repaired under a 10-year warranty, which was still valid.

5. Failure to Repair and Inaction by Police
   • Despite repeated phone follow-ups, no action was taken for over a month.
   • The Complainant filed a complaint at the Palarivattam police station, but no effective action was taken by the authorities.
   • Since 2nd April 2022, the Complainant and family have suffered from heat due to the lack of a functional AC.
6. Misleading Service Claims
   • The Complainant purchased the ACs based on positive media reports claiming the first respondent’s superior service.
   • The excuse of no stock for the compressor by the third opposite party (manufacturer) is implausible for a company of such size and reputation.
7. Relief Sought
   • The Complainant requests the Commission to:
     • Acknowledge the service deficiencies by the opposite parties.
     • Provide appropriate relief for the inconvenience and suffering caused to the Complainant since 2nd April 2022.
8. Evidence Submitted
   • 14 documents have been produced and marked as Exhibits to support the Complainant’s claims.

6. Summary of Argument Notes on Behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties

1. Right to Submit Arguments:

The version filed by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties was rejected for being submitted late. However, citing the Supreme Court judgment in ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh (04.09.2023), the opposite parties argue that they retain the right to present final arguments, even without filing a timely version.

2. Details of the Purchase and Service:
   • The complainant purchased two air conditioners from the 1st opposite party on 01.03.2018.
   • The air conditioners had a one-year comprehensive warranty and a nine-year warranty for the compressor.
   • The units functioned without issues for four years under an annual maintenance contract.
3. Service Request and Compressor Replacement:
   • A service request was received on 01.04.2022.
   • One air conditioner was serviced successfully, but the other had gas leakage from the compressor.
   • The compressor needed to be replaced, and the air conditioner was taken to the service center.
4. Delay in Compressor Availability:
   • There was a delay in obtaining the compressor, taking about a month to replace it.
   • During this period, the complainant filed a police complaint, which was later closed after the opposite parties provided an explanation.
5. Efforts to Contact the Complainant:
   • On 07.05.2022, the service center informed the complainant that the compressor had been replaced and requested confirmation for reinstallation.
   • However, the complainant did not respond and instead filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking compensation.
6. Defence Against the Complaint:
   • The opposite parties argue that there was no unreasonable delay or deficiency in service, as the replacement was completed.
   • The complaint does not involve any manufacturing defect, and the air conditioner is ready to be reinstalled.
   • Therefore, the opposite parties request the dismissal of the complaint and permission to reinstall the air conditioner.

The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. The opposite party's conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its Order dated 09/10/2017 in RP No. 579/2017 (2017(4) C.P.R 590) also held a similar stance. 

We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions of both parties, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence, including the argument notes.

i). Maintainability of the Complaint

The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which allows a consumer to seek redressal for grievances related to deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. The Complainant purchased air conditioners and availed paid service from the opposite parties. Thus, the Complainant qualifies as a "consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines "consumer" as a person who avails goods or services for consideration. The opposite parties have not contested the jurisdiction of the Commission, and no procedural objections have been raised. Therefore, the complaint is maintainable.

ii). Deficiency in Service and Negligence

The term "deficiency" is defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as any fault, imperfection, or inadequacy in the quality of service expected to be performed. The facts of the case indicate a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for the following reasons:

• The Complainant purchased two air conditioners on 1st March 2018 with an additional three-year extended warranty. Despite the payment for service, the Complainant experienced substandard service from 2018 to 2022, as the opposite parties were unresponsive and delayed repairs.
• In 2022, when the Complainant requested service, the compressor of the second air conditioner was removed by the opposite parties for repair, and no action was taken for over a month. Even after repeated follow-ups, including the filing of a complaint at Palarivattam Police Station, the opposite parties failed to address the issue promptly.
• The failure to repair or replace the compressor within a reasonable time frame amounts to a deficiency in service and caused significant inconvenience to the Complainant and his family, especially during the summer months of 2022 and Ramadan.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, [(2004) 5 SCC 65], held that if the service provider fails to provide services as contracted and causes suffering, mental agony, or inconvenience to the consumer, they are liable for deficiency in service.

3. Unfair Trade Practice

The opposite parties' claim that there was a delay due to a lack of stock for compressor replacement is implausible. Godrej is a reputable company, and such claims are unacceptable for a large corporation with resources to fulfill consumer needs. The opposite parties' failure to address the issue promptly despite receiving payment for extended service constitutes unfair trade practice, as defined under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consumers have a right to expect proper and timely services, and any deviation from this amounts to a violation of consumer rights.

iii). Entitlement to Relief

Considering the facts, the Complainant has established that he suffered considerable mental agony and inconvenience due to the actions of the opposite parties. The Complainant is entitled to the relief sought:

• Installation of a new air conditioner or a functioning replacement for the faulty AC.
• ₹25,000 compensation for mental agony and inconvenience.
• ₹2,000 reimbursement for case-related expenses.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raghava Estates Ltd. v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association, [RP No. 579/2017], held that consumers are entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment caused by service deficiencies.

5. Liability of the Opposite Parties

The first opposite party is responsible for the sale and extended warranty of the air conditioners. As the principal seller, they are jointly liable with the service provider for ensuring that the service obligations are met.

The second opposite party is directly responsible for the service deficiency as the authorized service agency that failed to repair the compressor.

The third opposite party as the manufacturer, cannot escape liability under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines "product liability" as the responsibility of the manufacturer for any harm caused to a consumer due to defective goods or deficient services. The company failed to provide adequate service support despite being notified of the compressor issue.

The manufacturers and service providers have a shared responsibility to ensure customer satisfaction, and failure to do so results in both being held liable for deficiency in service.

iv). Costs of the Proceedings

The complainant is also entitled to the costs of the proceedings, considering the delay and negligence caused by the opposite parties.

                   The Commission acknowledges that air conditioners, especially during the peak of summer and observances like Ramadan, are essential for maintaining comfort and well-being. The prolonged inaction, miscommunication, and negligence on the part of the opposite parties not only disrupted the Complainant's daily life but also caused mental agony to him and his family. It is disheartening that despite diligent follow-ups, the Complainant was left to suffer in the heat without any effective resolution. Businesses are expected to honour their commitments and uphold trust, and when they fail, the Commission would not be powerless to undo the wrong. Justice in this matter is not just about compensating for the inconvenience but also about ensuring accountability, so no consumer feels abandoned or mistreated in the future.

We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainants' favour due to the significant service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the Opposite Parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is allowed as follows:

1. The Opposite Parties are directed to make the two air conditioners in question fully functional, failing which the Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant ₹25,000 (twenty-five thousand) in lieu of the repair of the air conditioners.
2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay ₹20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused by the deficiency in service. This compensation covers the emotional distress, unfair trade practices, and the hardships endured by the complainant and his family due to the opposite party's negligence.

3. The opposite parties shall pay ₹10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) the complainant towards the costs of the proceedings.

                             The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under point II will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (13.05.2022) until the date of full payment realization

Pronounced in the Open Commission.

Dated this the 30^th  day of October 2024

Sd/-

D.B. Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                            Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

1. Exhibit A1: True copy of the Taxable Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party, dated 01.03.2018.
2. Exhibit A2: True copy of the Taxable Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party, dated 01.03.2018.
3. Exhibit A3: True copy of the Field Cash Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party, dated 01.04.2022.
4. Exhibit A4: True copy of the Acknowledgment Receipt of the petition issued by Palarivattom Police Station, dated 04.05.2022.
5. Exhibit A5: True copy of the petition filed by the complainant at Palarivattom Police Station, dated 04.05.2022.
6. Exhibit A6: True copy of the Visa of the complainant.
7. Exhibit A7: True copy of the Insurance Policy of the complainant.
8. Exhibit A8: True copy of the Flight Ticket.
9. Exhibit A9: True copy of the Train Ticket dated 30.04.2022.
10. Exhibit A10: True copy of the Train Ticket dated 27.04.2022.
11. Exhibit A11: True copy of the Call History details from 02.04.2022 to 21.04.2022.
12. Exhibit A12: True copy of the Train Ticket of the complainant, dated 23.04.2022.
13. Exhibit A13: True copy of the Call History of the complainant with the 1^st  opposite party from 02.04.2022 to 21.04.2022.
14. Exhibit A14: True copy of the Call History of the complainant with the counsel of the 3^rd  opposite party from 01.03.2022 to 22.11.2022.

Opposite Parties’ Evidence

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand         ::

By post           ::

AKR/

Order in CC No. 248/2022

Date: 30/10/2024