By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. On 26/09/2018 complainant purchased a Godraj Air conditioner worth Rs.25,500/- from first opposite party and which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. Complainant stated that as per the tax invoice there is 7 years warranty for the above air conditioner and opposite parties also assured the same. After 6 years of the purchase of the Air conditioner, the compressor became dyfunct and complainant informed about this to opposite party No.1 and they informed about this to opposite party No.2.
2. On 15/02/2024 a mechanic from opposite party No.2 came to complainant’s house and they realised that the compressor is defective and they assured that the compressor had 7 years warranty. They also assured that they will replace the compressor with a defect free one and the air conditioner will be working thereafter. But nothing happened thereafter. Then complainant called opposite party No.2 and they told to complainant that the compressor is unavailable. They directed the complainant to purchase another air conditioner and they also told that they will provide discount for the new air conditioner. But complainant was not able to purchase a new air conditioner at that time. Complainant is waiting for the new compressor for the last two months by suffering the extremely hot weather condition. Complainant stated that it is the duty of opposite party No.2 to replace the compressor as well as air conditioner itself. But nothing happened. It is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and
notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version. The matter referred for mediation and complainant was present for mediation , but both opposite parties were not present for mediation.
5. In their version, opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They stated that the complainant himself purchased the AC which was manufactured by opposite party No.2 after thoroughly inspecting the product and they delivered the product to complainant’s house. They also submitted that after the sale of the product, the after sales service and the warranty are provided by the manufacturer and their service centre which in this case is opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is only a dealer of the product manufactured by opposite party No.2 and they never provided and promised any after sales service warranty for the product in question. They also stated that they had never sent any agents subsequent to the sale of the product. All the communications and services were occurred between second opposite party and complainant. Moreover, they are not aware of the defects and damage caused to the product. Only the second opposite party is liable for the hardship and grievance caused to the complainant. They also stated that complainant is failed to produce any documents to prove the allegation made by him. Complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to prove any sort of defect in the AC and the withholding of the said crucial evidence itself true that the product is not having any sort of defect. Complainant is alleging the manufacturing defect of the product. It is a settled law that the dealer of the product is not liable for the manufacturing defect of the product. Complainant failed to prove the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
6. In their version, opposite party No.2 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They admitted that complainant had purchased the above air conditioner on 26/09/2018 from first opposite party and the air conditioner was provided with one year comprehensive warranty and 7 years warranty for the compressor alone. Admittedly for the last 6 years there was no complaint for the air conditioner.
7. On receipt of the complaint in February 2024, the technician from the authorised service centre visited complainant’s house and on inspection it was found that there was some complaint to the compressor and it need to be replaced for rectifying the complaint. Unfortunately during the said period there was scarcity for compressor for replacement therefore second opposite party offered on the purchase of a new air conditioner. The complainant was not amenable for that and therefore there occurred some delay. Now the compressor is available for replacement and was informed to the complainant and sought his permission to install a new compressor. The second opposite party offered to bear the expenses of gas filling charge and the service charge which comes to around Rs. 2500/- as a special case. But the complaint is not prepared to accept the same and rushed to this Commission and demanding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the opposite parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties. The delay in redressing the complaint was due to non-availability of new compressor for replacement. There is no undue delay in providing the service. They are still prepared to replace the compressor free of cost without charging for the consumables, especially the gas to be refilled any service charge. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
8. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced is marked as Ext.A1 . Ext.A1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 26/09/2018. Thereafter opposite parties did not file their affidavit and documents to prove their case and not co-operate with the mediation conducted at this Commission.
9. Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced one document which proves that he purchased the product from opposite party No.1 on 26/09/2018. While scrutinising the version of opposite parties, opposite party No.2 admitted that the compressor had 7 years warranty. That means the defect of the compressor of the air conditioner caused during the warranty period. Opposite party No.2 admitted that unfortunately there was scarcity for compressor for replacement and therefore they offered discount on the purchase of a new air conditioner. But they are not stated the reason for the scarcity of the product and what is the fault of complainant for the above scarcity. Opposite party No.2 admitted the deficiency in service from their side. It is the duty of opposite party No.2 to rectify the defect of the air conditioner during the warranty period. Complainant himself stated that when compressor became defective, he informed about this to opposite party No.1 and they informed about the defect of the air conditioner to opposite party No.2 and the mechanic of opposite party No.2 came and inspected the condition of the air conditioner. Complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service from the side of opposite party No.1. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.2 as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party No.2 is deficient in service.
10. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- Opposite party No.2 is directed to install a new defect free compressor and perform all related works including gas refilling necessary to restore the air conditioner to proper working condition free of cost to complainant.
- The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite party No.2 also directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 29th day of October , 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Copy of tax invoice dated 26/09/2018.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
