SRI NILAKANTHA PANDA, PRESIDENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) against the Ops alleging deficiency-in-service praying for a compensation of Rs.1,52,200/- from the Ops.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that on 9.11.2022, he purchased one Carrier Air Conditioner 18K, 3 Star Indus Cx Split vide Sl. No. IDU-50077-3649213001663 ODU-500773702227001913 from OP No.2 on payment of Rs.35,200/- which carried a warranty for one year from the date of purchase. It is stated that the complainant had purchased the above product in the winter season for which the same was not operated till summer season. During the fag end of March, 2023 when the A.C. in question was operated, the same was found not supplied with cooling. At that time, the complainant complained before the OP No.2. One mechanic came and repaired the A.C. but the A.C. was not supplied with cooling. Thereafter, another mechanic came and repaired, but the problem could not be solved. On being approached, OP No.2 stated that one efficient authorized mechanic will visit his premises to solve the problem, but till today no one had been to his premises for the purpose in spite of several request and phone calls. It is further stated that from 21.10.2023 to 28.10.2023, the complainant contacted with OP No.2 time and again, physically visited and filed written complaint before the OP No.2, but the OP No.2 turned a deaf ear towards the problem of the complainant, rather, he misbehaving in obscene words for which the complainant sustained both mentally and financially and lastly on 28.10.2023, OP No.2 threatened the complainant with dire consequences.
It is the specific case of the complainant that he is a senior citizen, physically weak person and has reputation in the locality. Such type of illegal acts, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as committed by the Ops not only put the complainant into harassment but also violated the principle of natural justice. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the present with the relief, as stated in his complaint petition.
The cause of action arose for filing of this case on 28.10.2023, when the Ops denied to provide any service and threatened to go and do as desired. Hence, this case.
That to substantiate the complaint, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder:-
- Photocopy of Retail invoice dated 9.11.2022.
- Photocopy of e-messages lodged before the OP No.4.
3. In the present case, in spite of receipt of notice, the OP No.1 & 3, OP No.2 appeared and filed their respective written versions, but their written versions are not accepted as the same were filed beyond the statutory period. Further, the OP No.4 neither appeared nor filed written statement for which he was set ex parte.
4. The points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether the case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. First of all, it is to be threshed out as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not, whether the complainant has cause of action to file the case and whether the case is maintainable or not. On a meticulous examination of the complaint petition as well as the documents produced by the complainant, it is found that the complainant had purchased one Air Conditioner of Carrier make from the OP No.2 on 9.11.2022 on payment of Rs.35,200/- and obtained retain invoice vide Annexure-1. The above purchased A.C. carried warranty of one year from the date of purchase. It is seen that OP No.1 & 3 are the registered company of the product in question located in different locations. OP No.2 is the authorized retailer and OP No.4 is the authorized service centre of OP No.1 & 3. The purchased A.C. in question of the complainant was found manufacturing defect from the very beginning for which he lodged complainant before the Ops for its repair. But, as it reveals from the case record, the Ops have not taken any coercive measures for removal of the defect, as narrated by the complainant, rather, they turned a deaf ear to the requests so also the complaint lodged by him till today, for which the complainant was constrained to file the case. From the above, it is clearly made out that the complainant is a consumer as required U/s 2(7) of the Act. Consequently, the complainant has cause of action to tile the case and the case is maintainable.
6. In order to substantiate his case with regard to deficiency in service, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 9.11.2022, the complainant purchased one Carrier Air Conditioner from OP No.2 for Rs.35,200/- with a warranty for one year. As the complainant purchased the A.C. in the winter, it could not be functioned well but in the month of March, 2023, when the A.C. was operated, it could not function properly and cooling system was not operated. So, the complainant complained before the OP No.2 and one mechanic came and repaired the A.C. but the A.C. could not supplied with cooling as earlier. Similarly, another mechanic came, but he could not sort out the same problem. It is further submitted that on being approached, OP No.2 assured that one efficient authorized mechanic would visit his premises to solve the problem, but till today no one had been to his premises in spite of several request and phone calls. It is further stated that from 21.10.2023 to 28.10.2023, the complainant contacted with OP No.2 time and again, physically visited and filed written complaint before the OP No.2, but the OP No.2 turned a deaf ear towards the problem of the complainant, rather, he misbehaving in obscene words for which the complainant sustained both mentally and financially and lastly on 28.10.2023, OP No.2 threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is emphatically submitted that the complainant is a senior citizen, physically weak person and has reputation in the locality. Such type of illegal acts, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as committed by the Ops not only put the complainant into harassment but also violated the principle of natural justice.
7. To counter the submission as advanced on behalf of the complainant, learned counsel for OP No.1 & 3 submitted that the averments made in the complaint petition of the complainant is not supported with any material documents to prove deficiency in service on the part of these Ops. The present OP No.1 & 3 are engaged in the business of manufacturing high quality Air Conditioners. The complainant has intentionally suppressed the material facts before this Commission which are required for adjudication of the case. It is submitted that the complainant had installed the product through the third party not by the authorized service engineers of the company for which the complainant lost its warranty. It is further submitted that on the complaint made by the complainant, one service engineer was appointed, who inspected the product and found that mode of cooling was set as dry mode and changed the mode to cooling mode, after which it was working fine. Thereafter, on 28.4.2023 another service engineer had been to the premises of the complainant and preventive maintenance in respect of the product was done thoroughly. The complainant had raised another complaint with the present OP No.1 & 3 regarding break down of the product, at that time also their service engineer visited the product and found that due to faulty installation, there was leakage through ODU flaring nut which was duly repaired and gas was refilled. Again on 10.6.2023 upon complaint of the complainant, service engineer visited the premises of the complainant on 131.6.2023 and found that everything was normal in the product, but adjusted the fan of the ODU in order to satisfy the complainant. Further, on 21.7.2023, the complainant again raised another complaint about the noise in ODU of the product to which one service engineer carried out the inspection of the product on 22.7.2023 and found that again there was no issue with the product and it was working fine and adjusted the sound blower of the ODU. It is further submitted that on 28.9.2023 the complainant raised another complaint regarding service of the jet pump of the product to which another service engineer was appointed for carrying out service of the jet pump on 30.9.2023. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present OP No.1 & 3 are deficient in providing their service towards the complainant.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 vehemently argued that the present OP No.2 is a dealer only and neither the manufacturer nor service provider, rather, he had intimated the complaint to the authorized service centre of the company who are liable for after sales service, who are competent to remove the defects as pointed out in the A.C. in question. Further, the present OP No.2 is unnecessarily dragged into the hutch pot of the case.
9. From the above submissions and on perusal of the documents, it is found that undisputedly the complainant had purchased one Carrier A.C. from the business counter of the OP No.2 vide Annexure-1 and the OP No.1 & 3 are manufacturer in respect of the A.C. in question, as admitted by them. The defects as pointed out in the alleged A.C. by both the parties are found during the coverage of warranty period. According to OP No.1 & 3, their service engineer had been to the premises of the complainant at different times with a view to sort out the problems that has been complained in the A.C. in question. Further, OP No.1 & 3 admitted that in all the visits, their service engineers found one after another defects in the A.C. in question and sorted out the problems. From the above, it is held that the A.C. in question was found defective either manufacturing or other from the date of purchase.
10. It is submitted by the OP No.1 & 3 that the complainant had installed the product through the third party and not by the authorized service engineers of the company for which the complainant lost its warranty. In this context, not a single document is filed before this Commission to prove that the complainant had installed the alleged A.C. purchased from the OP No.2 by any third party. It is an admitted fact that OP No.2 is an authorized dealer under the OPNo.1 & 3 to sell carrier A.C. on their behalf and OP No.4 is the authorized service centre of OP No.1 & 3. Here, in the present case, OP No.4 did not choose to appear and defend the case of the complainant. The role of the OP No.4 in the present scenario is vital, who supposed to have made his appearance at least to say that the facts as submitted by the OP No.1 & 3 are true to the best of his knowledge and the verbatim narrated by the complainant in his complaint petition is based on falsehood. That apart, OP No.2 has admitted that the complainant had purchased the A.C. in question from his business counter, but he has not stated a single word that their service engineer had not installed the A.C. in the premises of the complainant. OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of OP No.1 & 3 and OP No.4 is their authorized service centre. When they did not support the case of the OP No.1 & 3 and remained silent with regard to the installation of the A.C. in question by the third party, the submission advanced by the OP No.1 & 3 in this regard that too without any documentary proof, cannot be believable. On the contrary, from the submission of OP No.1 & 3 and from the written submission of OP No.2, it is found that the A.C. in question purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 has got various manufacturing defect which could not have been resolved by their service engineers. Moreover, the present complainant is a senior citizen, who supposed to have purchased the A.C. with a view to live his comfortable life in the summer season. That apart, it was known to all that during the period of current summer, due to severe heat wave, the second highest temperature was recorded in the locality. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant, a senior citizen, might not have faced inconvenience. Now a days, Air Conditioner is an essential product in every households so also in offices and without A.C. one cannot adjust his normal life in the home as well as normal work in the offices in day to day business. Thus, suffering from mental agony and financial loss by the complainant cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, could not have shown their obligations towards the complainant for making his A.C. in good condition or to have suggested for its replacement or to return the product to the place of its purchase or to them. On the other hand, as stated by the complainant, OP No.2 threatened the complainant in abusive language. Is this a nature and character of the dealer towards the customer? Hence, the facts and circumstances described above leads this Commission to arrive at unanimous conclusion that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Further, the OP No.2, who deals with the products of Carrier Company and sold the A.C. to the complainant, has not at all took any endeavour nor showed any obligation either to make the A.C. of the complainant functional or take any initiative with the OP No.1, 3 & 4 with regard to the problems of the complainant. Hence, OPNo.2 is liable to pay the compensation. Similarly, OP No.4, who is an authorized service centre of OP No.1 & 3 did not contest the case, still then it cannot be said that he is not liable for the compensation. All the Ops are bound to provide proper service on the product deals with by them, but in the present case, the Ops have found to have not performed their services towards a consumer like complainant. From the above, it is clearly made out that the Ops have not extended proper and sufficient services towards the complainant to make his A.C. in question repaired and thereby deficiency in service on their part is clearly attributed. Hence, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the claim of the complainant.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against OPs No.1, 2 & 3 and on ex parte against OP No.4. The O.Ps No.1 & 3 are directed to install a new A.C. of same brand and capacity or the next higher version (if the sold version is not available). Further, the O.Ps No.1 & 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant. Both the O.Ps No.2 & 4 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant, as the O.P No.2 failed to co-ordinate this case with Company & Customer and the O.P No.4 for non-appearance in this case, despite of receipt of the notice of this Commission. All the O.Ps are directed to carry out the above said order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure by the O.Ps to comply any of the orders as above mentioned, within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the same in the shape of cash, kind and / or in any other mode as afore mentioned, from the O.Ps as per the prevailing law.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 14th day of May, 2024 under signature & seal of the commission.
