BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 25^th DAY OF JULY 2024

ORDER

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER

The complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction towards OP for the following reliefs:-

1. To direct the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.8,10,472/- paid towards purchase of VRF air conditioners along with 18% interest per annum till the date of realization.
2. To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards expenses spent by complainants on approach to rectify the problems of VRF air conditioner;
3. To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,00/- as compensation for the incontinence, loss, deficiencies in services, breach of representations and hardship suffered by the complainant.
4. To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages occurred to complainant;
5. To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as costs of this proceedings.
6. Award any other appropriate relief/s which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case/matter/proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The OP No.1 Blue Star Limited is an Indian Multinational Home Appliances Company headquartered in Mumbai. It specializes in heating, ventilation, air conditioning, commercial refrigeration and also offers expertise in electrical, plumbing, fire fighting activities and industrial projects. The OP No.2 is a dealer to OP No.1 company. That the complainants pursued over excellent reviews about the OPs company i.e. Blue Star, opted to purchase Blue Star VRF air conditioner for their newly built house. That the complainants purchased the air conditioner VRF system as detailed below as payment of invoice amount of Rs.8,10,472/- as per proforma invoice No.PI-0045 dated 19.10.2022 for their beneficial use. The proforma invoice is as follows:

3. On purchase, the VRF system air conditioners were delivered and fixed on the same walls as decided. But the units delivered and fixed are very poor in quality and the post sales services rendered in fixation of the product by OP employees was improper and negligent. That all the splits on fixing make blare and hard sounds making it difficult for the complainants and their family members to reside and stay in their house due the disturbing noise emitted from the splits.  On installation of VRF air conditioners, the complainants as per the instructions of OPs registered the same. As per the product registration report the warrant policy period is 12 months from the date of installation.

4. As stated the systems have been problematic since the very first day of installation by way of unbearable noise produced and this fact was brought to the knowledge of OPs company but to avail no proper response. On several complaints to customer care the OPs company employees visited the complainants house but could not repair the same and subsequently thereafter one of the air conditions purchased started to leak from its drain, due to this the wall with complete interiors affixed to it has been damaged. Even though the complainant has been repeatedly sending several reminders and raising several concerns via E-mail to the OPs customer care, the OPs has been irresponsible and has not been taking any serious to resolve the problem by repairing the VRF air conditioners. It is astonishing to aver that the OPs company having and holding decades on reputation has sold damaged systems resulting in noise pollution and leakage with faulty systems. The complainants on delivery has paid the invoice amount completely without dues, even then OPs company fixed systems causing noise and leaks affecting the peace of complainants and their family members.

5. The complainants approached the OPs employees to rectify the problems yet there is no response from the OPs company despite persistent requests and reminders. That the OPs company had placed poor quality defective systems causing mental distress and mental disharmony among the complainants making them suffer day after day. The aforementioned act on OPs part has caused the complainants immense loss and damage besides mental agony, trauma, inconvenience and loss of value of money. The OPs company has committed an act of cheating, fraud and breach of trust by supplying poor quality and defective VRF system air conditioners to the complainants and cheated them by making false promises. With no option the complainant by RPAD had issued legal notice dated 21.03.2023 to OP No.1&2, calling them to rectify the problems by the repairing the VRF system and ensuring the problems of noise emitted and leakage caused be fixed within 15 days of notice received, non compliance of the same, the OPs were called upon to refund the invoice amount of Rs.8,10,472/- paid by the complainants on purchase along with other expenses of Rs.25,000/-. The said notice sent through RPAD has been duly served to OP No.1 & 2 on 24.03.2023. That on service of notice, the OP No.1&2 failed to rectify the problems within the period of 15 days from the date of service but instead sent an untenable reply notice by denying the averments made therein.

6. It is pertinent to specify herein that after issuance of untenable reply, the OPs company in order to escape from their negligence mailed the complainant for giving service. But to astonish of complainant no service was done but they have given service report wherein thereby forgoing the complainant No.2 signature at column of customer signature.  The signature made therein does not belong to complainant No.2 which clearly demonstrates the attitude of OPs company. Even on fixing the VRF air conditioners, the complainants are feeling uncomfortable and are unable to sleep without proper air conditioners in the summer which raised up to 36C. It is essential point to specify herein that now even in room the complainant founds leakages and due to which the TV, TV walls, walls are getting damaged and also the pains are into blockage.

7. The complainants have made hectic efforts in approaching the OPs company to rectify the problems occurred but all the efforts of the complainants have proved futile except to approach this Hon’ble commission for the relief. Thus, it is obvious that the OP No.1 & 2 is deliberately avoiding the complainants to make unjust enrichment at the cost of the complainants. The complainants had invested their hard earned money to purchase VRF air conditioners. It is submitted that due to the breach of representations by the OP No.1&2, the complainants have been suffering both financially and mentally by investing their hard earned money. The complainant left with no other alternative except to approach this Hon’ble Commission. Hence this complaint has been filed.

8. On the issue of notice to the OPs, OP No.1 files version. OP No.2 fails to appear before this commission and hence placed Ex-parte.

9. In the version of OP No.1, OP NO.1 is a multinational cooling solutions company and India’s leading air conditioning and commercial refrigeration company. OP No.1 also works in association with several regulatory bodies under the Government of India to develop standards for safety and efficiency, while representing the industry on national and international platforms. The complainants have filed this complaint under section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“Act”) alleging poor quality product, unbearable noise, water leakage and poor post sale services against the VRF system air conditioner purchased by the complainant.

10. At the outset, OP No.1 denies each and every statement, allegation and contention made in the said complaint as the same are false, baseless and not maintainable. Nothing contained in the said complaint shall be deemed to have been admitted by OP No.1 of specific denial. All averments made in the complaint are hereby denied unless specifically admitted in these objections. Non-traversal of any averment shall not be deemed to be an admission of any claim, allegation or contention of the complainants. The OP No.1 craves liberty to raise any additional objections at a later stage or during the hearing. At no point in time has there been a defect in the VRF system air conditioners purchased by the complainant or in the after sale services. The complainants have made bare allegations in the complaint, without providing any proof of defect, or showing any real cause of action for the present complaint.

11. OP No.1 is a well-recognized and leading provider of cooling solutions and has nearly eight decades of experience in providing expert cooling solutions. It offers a comprehensive range of products that are not only technologically advanced but also sustainable, energy efficient and intuitively designed. Products of the OP No.1 are manufactured with contemporary features, and these products ensure the best of comfort and convenience. Further, OP No.1 prides itself an offering a world class customer experience and exemplary after-sales service. Admittedly, the complainant’s being aware of the OP No.1’s products and excellent reviews, purchased the VRF Air Conditioner (‘Product’) for their newly built house. Further, the said VRF Air Conditioner was commissioned by the OP No.2’s technicians on 11 February 2023.

12. The product is a side discharge VRF system with many distinguishing features relevant for use in India. The product is developed, tested and validated in the OP No.1’s National Accreditation Board of Testing and Calibration Laboratories accredited Research and Development lab, and manufactured at the OP No.1’s state if the art manufacturing facility in Dadra. The product is sold not only across India but also exported to various countries around the Globe. Some unique features of the product are as follows:

a) Temperature control with +0.5 Degrees or -0.5 degrees accuracy to ensure uncompromised comfort;

b) Better internal oil lubrication resulting in reliable operation.

c) Very low starting current, hence lower capacity generator is sufficient which save the cost on power back up system;

d) Part load operation maximum efficiency;

e) A specially designed motor with a permanent rate earth magnet and concentrated winding which increases the efficiency of the compressor by 7%

f) Quieter operation.

13. The details of the product are available on OP No.1’s website and is thus available on the public domain. Potential customers are thus informed about the Product’s cooling/heating capacity, filter specifications, type of pipe connection, physical dimensions, sound level and the like. In particular, disclaimers are provided about the product, including disclaimers relating to the noise level of the product which specifically state that “the values in the table for noise levels are based on measurement taken in anechoic chamber and may vary as per the actual ambient noise conditions”. In these circumstances, by an E-mail dated 24 February 2023, the complainant No.2 raised an issue alleging that he split units are emitting sound and leaking has damaged textured wall. With no further delay, the OP No.1's customer service replied to the complainant No.2 to provide certain details of the issue for the OP No.1 rectify the problem, if any. The OP No.1 confirmed the registration of complaint as “Ticket ID B23022700597” by an E-mail dated 27 February 2023 to the complainant.

14. Subsequently, the technician from Op No.1 carried out an examination of the product and examined the noise levels in the presence of the complainants. It is noteworthy that the test was carried out in an environment containing very high ambient noise. Yet, it was found that the noise levels were within permissible limits and the same was informed to the complainants. Accordingly, since the issue was resolved, an E-mail dated 02 March 2023 was sent by the OP No.1 to the complainant No.2 recording the same. The complainants, however on the pretext that their issue had not been solved, contacted the OP NO.1 again to rectify the alleged issue relating to the noise. Again, the representatives of OP No.1 visited the premises of the complainants and again examined the noise levels on 03 April 2023. It was again found that, despite high ambient/surrounding noise at the premises of the complainants, noise levels were within permissible limits. The OP No.1 explained to the complainants in detail that there was no defect in the product, and that the sound alleged by the complainants falls under the range permitted- as clearly stated in the product catalogue available in the public domain. However, despite the complainants being clearly aware of this disclaimer and the permissible sound range of the product, continue to raise untenable complaints against the product and service related to the same.

15. The complainants were aware of the noise levels of the product, they cannot now raise issues relating to the sound emitted by the product. Thus, knowing fully well the minimum and permissible sound emission of the product, the complainant cannot allege that the product is defective at this stage. Furthermore, except to state that the issue of the sound emission was not rectified when such sound emission is clearly within permissible limits – the complainants have brought nothing on record to show that the after sales service was defective. To reiterate, the OP NO.1 has diligently tried to address the complaints raised by the complainants, and there is no fault in either the product of the OP No.1 or the service provided by OP No.1.

16. In regards to the leakage of the air conditioner, the representatives of the OP No.1 specifically conveyed to the complainants that the interior designer who worked after commissioning the air conditioners, has damaged the drain pipe, causing it to leak. To further examine and rectify the issue, the complainants were also informed that to the Op No.1 would need to have the drain line checked. In order to do this, the OP No.1 would need to have the wall panel opened for which there is a dependence on the interior contractor of the complainants. Unless the panel is opened, OP No.1 would be unable to ascertain the exact issue and thus solve it. However, despite repeated requests and visits by the service representatives of OP No.1, the complainants refused to permit them to address the issue by refusing to connect them the interior contractor as well as refusing entry to the complainant’s home to rectify the issue.

17. To reiterate, there is no defect in the product and the VRF systems commissioned at the complainant’s house is verified and tested by skilled technicians. The noise levels are well within permissible, a fact known to the complainants even prior to the purchase of the product. Furthermore, the blame on the leakage cannot be apportioned on OP No.1 especially given that (a) the leakage has been caused due to the fault of the interior contractor and (b) the complainants have refused to permit the representative of OP NO.1 to examine and rectify the issue. Evidently, all the issues of the complainants were resolved well before the filing of the complaint. However, in bad faith, the complainants have filed the complaint in question, although there was no defect or deficiency whatsoever on part of the OP No.1. Therefore, considering the above, OP No.1 prays that this Hon’ble Commission dismiss this complaint and impose exemplary costs on the complainants, apart from directing them to pay costs of these proceedings to the OP No.1.

18. The complainant No.2 has filed affidavit evidence3 along with 13 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. OP NO.1 counsel filed affidavit evidence along with 8 documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8. Complainant fails to submit arguments. OP No.1 counsel submits written arguments along with 2 decisions. HeardOP No.1 counsel.

19. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

20.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:-Affirmative.

Point No.2:-Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

21. Point No.1&2:-These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

22.  On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant in the Ex.P.1 is the copy of invoice issued by OP to the complainant dated 19.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.8,10,472/-. The OP No.1 in its version agree to the fact that the complainant has got the VRF the AC installed from OPs. Ex.P.5 is the registration report issued by OP to the complainant dated 13.02.2023 with warranty duration and maintenance for 1 year i.e. 13.02.2023 to 01.09.2023. Ex.P.8 which is the copy of E-mails having conversation of complaint and OPs, where the complainants have raised the complaint with OP to resolve the problem. The issue/problem raised with the VRF AC installed is well within the warranty period. The OPs though have tried to resolve the problem, have failed to do so.

23. On perusal of the Ex.P.6 which are the copies of the photos of the leakage of the ACs and the damage caused due to leakage of the AC, it is clear that the complainant is facing huge problem. It is difficult to reside in such a house with water leakage as the leakage of water may be hazardous to life of the complainant and his family members living in that house. The leakage on the walls have made serious damages and is dangerous too as the TV unit is placed right under the ACs. The OP No.1 has filed affidavit evidence with 7 documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7. OP No.2 has failed to appear before this commission and hence placed Ex-parte. Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3 are the copy of invoice issued b y OP to the complainant dated 12.05.2022 and 02.06.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,77,049.60/- and Rs.2,82,598.40/- respectively. Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7 are the E-mail conversation between the OP and complainant. The OP No.1 has filed the interrogatories and the complainant has replied to the interrogatories.The OPs here has supplied a defective product with a defect in its quality, potentiality. OPs have shown Unfair Trade Practice by selling a defective product to its consumer and has also failed to replace the product or give proper satisfactory service. OPs have further failed to resolve the problem of the consumer i.e. complainant, though the complaint raised was well within the warranty period, OPs have shown deficiency in service too by doing so. Hence the OPs are jointly and severally liable to repay the amount of Rs.8,10,472/-.

24. There is a variation in the amount in the invoice copy submitted by OP No.1 and complainant, but OP No.1 has raised no questions on the claim of the complainant. Hence the amount of the Invoice copy of submitted by the complainant is taken into consideration. OP No.2 has failed to appear before this commission hence placed Ex-parte. The complainant have claimed for 18% interest, Rs.2,500/- towards expenses, Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation, Rs.5,00,000/- for the damages and Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of litigation which seems to be exorbitant. Both the OPs have shown deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice and hence are liable to repay the amount of Rs.8,10,472/- with interest of 8% p.a. from the date of purchase of the ACs i.e. 19.10.2022 till realization. Further the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.25,000/-.

25. Point No.3:-In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to repay the amount of Rs.8,10,472/- with 8% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 19.10.2022 till realization.
3. OPs are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation charges.
4. OPs are directed to comply the order within 45 days failing which shall pay an interest of 10% p.a. on the amount of Rs.8,10,472/- till realization.

5. Furnish the copies of the order and return the extra copies of pleadings and documents to the parties, with no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 25^th day of July 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1&2;