Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased Split AC Model AC-Carrier-18K OCTRA-3 Star from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No.376 dated 11.07.2016 for Rs.36,500/- with the assurance that three free services will be provided. On 08.04.2017, the complainant noticed that the AC in question was giving lots of noises and also very foul smell. The complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Parties and they sent their representatives who checked the same, but all the times, the behavior of the representatives of the Opposite Parties was not good and they could not rectify the problem in the product in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests and representatives to the Opposite Parties, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, the detail of all the conversation and correspondence has duly been mentioned in the complaint itself by the complainant. In this way, due to the wrong and misbehavior of the representatives of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered a lot and such loss on account of mental tension and harassment can not be compensated in the shape of money because the Opposite Parties are careless to provide their services after sale as such, the Opposite Parties are responsible for the same. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.3 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 had always responded to the complaints filed by the complainant with Opposite Party No.1 and has further adhered to all the unnecessarily demands of the complainant, however the complainant with the sole motive to get undue benefit in form of compensation from the Opposite Party No.1, filed the instant complaint. It is further submitted that between 30.03.2017 and 06.07.2017 the complainant called the Opposite Party No.1 service helpline number 21 times. Further submitted that there is no parts in the indoor unit which can cause foul smell to emanate, however sometimes due to non servicing of the AC for a long time and accumulation of dust, mites, fungus and moisture in the coil, some damp smell can come out of the indoor unit when switched on but such a smell is never extreme so as to justify the replacement of the entire AC as demanded by the complainant. However, despite the aforesaid, by way of abundant caution the Opposite Party No.1 had changed the coil of the indoor unit to rule out the possibility of even the slightest of smell from the said AC, but the complainant with the sole motive to illegal gain from the Opposite Party No.1 has filed the present complaint and there is no defect in the said AC. Moreover, before complaining of foul smell, the complainant had used the AC seamlessly for 10 months. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. On the other hand, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and 3 and hence, they were proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove their case, neither the complainant nor Opposite Party No.1 tendered any document in support of their contention, so we have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the un-exhibited documents placed on record.
6. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Split AC Model AC-Carrier-18K OCTRA-3 Star from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No.376 dated 11.07.2016 for Rs.36,500/- with the assurance that three free services will be provided. On 08.04.2017, the complainant noticed that the AC in question was giving lots of noises and also very foul smell. The complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Parties and they sent their representatives who checked the same, but all the times, the behavior of the representatives of the Opposite Parties was not good and they could not rectify the problem in the product in question to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests and representatives to the Opposite Parties, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that Opposite Party No.1 had always responded to the complaints filed by the complainant with Opposite Party No.1 and has further adhered to all the unnecessarily demands of the complainant, however the complainant with the sole motive to get undue benefit in form of compensation from the Opposite Party No.1, filed the instant complaint. It is further submitted that between 30.03.2017 and 06.07.2017 the complainant called the Opposite Party No.1 service helpline number 21 times. Further submitted that there is no parts in the indoor unit which can cause foul smell to emanate, however sometimes due to non servicing of the AC for a long time and accumulation of dust, mites, fungus and moisture in the coil, some damp smell can come out of the indoor unit when switched on but such a smell is never extreme so as to justify the replacement of the entire AC as demanded by the complainant. However, despite the aforesaid, by way of abundant caution the Opposite Party No.1 had changed the coil of the indoor unit to rule out the possibility of even the slightest of smell from the said AC, but the complainant with the sole motive to illegal gain from the Opposite Party No.1 has filed the present complaint and there is no defect in the said AC.
7. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased the AC in question from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No. 376 dated 11.07.2016 for Rs.36,500/- and within very short period of about 7 months i.e. for the first time on 08.04.2017 said AC in question started giving problems such like foul smell and noises etc. In this regard, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties, but to no affect, copy of the bill vide which the complainant purchased the AC in question is placed on record. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the AC in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
As stated above, the complainant proved all these averments through his un exhibited documents. The documents produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence.
8. So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the AC of the complainant was suffering from inherent defects, which did not admit repair/ rectification. As argued above by the ld.counsel for the complainant that the complainant has no faith in such Opposite Party company because since the date of purchase of the AC in question, the complainant has been harassed badly all the time without any reasonable cause and he does not want to keep the product of this company and made prayer that the amount of the product may please be refunded alongwith interest and compensation. In his prayer, the complainant has prayed before this District Consumer Commission to pay Rs.3 lakh as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lakh is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant.
9. In views of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund the price of the AC in question i.e. Rs.36,500/- (Rupees thirty six thousands five hundred only) to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties jointly or severally within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced in accordance with law. All pending applications are disposed off accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
