IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                    C.C.No. 271/2022

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S.SANDHYA   RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                                   ORDER DATED:  31-03-2023.

BETWEEN

Noufal, S/o Nasarudeen,

Thannikkalayyath Veedu,

Kadappa muri, Mynagappally P.O.,

Kunnathoor, Kollam 690519.                                                                                      :      Complainant

(By Adv.Anju Rajendran)

AND

1.  Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s MyG, General Digital Hub, Azhar Tower, N.H.66,

Near Lalaji Junction, Karunagappally, Kollam 690518.

2. The Managing Director,

Perfect Air Conditioning, Kalloormukku,

Changankulangara, Oachira, Kollam

Voltas Limited, Air Conditioning

Contractor in Kollam Area.                                                                                   :      Opposite Parties

ORDER

Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant is conducting a digital service centre accompanied with Janavasa Kendram for his livelihood.  Thereafter the complainant on 10.06.2022 purchased two Air Conditioners worth Rs.61,980/-.  The said air conditioners purchased were given to the neighbour of the complainant on the responsibility and the assurance of the complainant.  But one of the Air Conditioners purchased by the complainant became defective on 10.07.2022.  The complainant informed the defective condition of the Air Conditioner to the 1^st opposite party through telephone.  But even on repeated demands and requests the opposite party failed to examine the A/C and suggested an opinion to rectify the same.  At the time of purchasing A/C, the 1^st opposite party assured that A/C is having high quality and performance that if the A/C  became defective that will be rectified.  Based on repeated requests and demands from the part of the complainant a technician deputed from the opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and examined the A/C and told the complainant that there is gas leak in the A/C, so for getting clarity for the A/C gas has to be filled.  Thereafter gas has been filled by the technician deputed from the 1^st opposite party and he suggested to keep A/C for three days in observation.  On 07.08.2022 the technician from the 2^nd opposite party visited the complainant’s house and after examination he opined that there is outdoor leakage in the A/C so that it is the main reason for the imperfect condition of the A/C which is a serious defect and he will file a detailed report to the company and the defective A/C will be replaced by a brand new A/C at the earliest.  The complainant believing the assurance made by the technician approached the opposite parties but they failed to rectify the defective A/C.   These being the facts of the case the opposite parties never took any steps to rectify the defect of the A/C or to provide a brand new A/C by substituting the old one or to refund the amount collected for the A/C.  The act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint. 

Though notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite parties, they have received the notice and failed to appear before the Commission or to take any effort to file version.  Hence the opposite parties were called absent and they were set exparte.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 and P2 documents.  Ext.P1 is the tax invoice issued from the 1^st opposite party dated 10.06.2022.  Ext.P2 is the transaction detail dated 10.06.2022.  Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records.

The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 and P2 documents would prima facie establish that on 10.06.2022, complainant purchased two air conditioners worth Rs.61,980/-.  The said A/C purchased was given to the neighbor of the complainant on the responsibilities and the assurance of the complainant.  However one of the A/C purchased by the complainant was in a defective condition on 10.07.2022.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant has informed the defective condition of the A/C to the 1^st opposite party through telephone.  However even on repeated demands and requests the opposite party failed to examine the A/C and to take effective steps to rectify the defect.  At the time of purchasing the A/C,  the 1^st opposite party gave assurance that in case of any defect that will be rectified by them.  In spite of repeated enquiry the technicians of the 2^nd opposite party examined the A/C and the A/C was kept in observation for a period of 3 days.  Thereafter the technician informed the complainant that there is gas leakage to the inner part of the A/C which is a major complaint.  The only option is to replace the system and he  gave assurance that he will be filing the detailed report to both opposite parties.  Thereafter on the assurance the complainant approached the opposite parties but they evaded away from the assurance given by the technician while examining the A/C.

On evaluating the entire materials we hold that the A/C purchased from the opposite parties became defective on the very earlier period of the purchase which comes under the purview of warranty and guarantee period.  However the opposite party failed to repair or replace the same.  It is an established fact that opposite parties are under obligation to keep the A/C in perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant  which the opposite party failed to do so.   It is quite normal a person while purchasing a machine instrument or even a gadget will have the reasonable expectation that the same will be in his use for life or at least the money he invested will be returned not in terms of money but by way of use.  While considering the alarming atmospheric temperature an air conditioner is not a luxury in Kerala, but a basic necessity.  While considering the grievance of the complainant herein, it is evident that he purchased one A/C by spending Rs.30,490/- but after 30 days, it broke down and no longer functioned even after repeated repairs.  The complainant had knocked the doors of the opposite parties with the defective A/C but his grievance was not solved.   On the basis of uncontroverted testimony of complainant coupled with Ext.P1 and P2 documents it can be safely concluded that the complainant has established his case warranting the grant of relief sought for. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The opposite parties had an obligation on their part to prove there is no manufacturing defect for the product and in its absence we hold the view A/C had manufacturing defect.  It is very pertinent to note that the admitted defect happen during guarantee and warranty period.  Complainant had sustained mental agony apart from financial loss.  In the circumstance we are of the view that the complaint is only to be allowed.

1. The opposite parties are directed to substitute  a brand new A/C of the same value and specifications to the complainant or to repay its price ofRs.30,490/- and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as the costs of the proceedings.
3. The complainant is directed to produce the defective Air Conditioner along with the copy of Ext.P1 document at the shop of opposite party within 45 days from date of receipt of copy of this order after receiving back the defective Air Conditioner the opposite parties shall comply with directions No. 1 & 2 failing which the complainant is at liberty  to recover the amount covered by relief No.1 and 2 with interest @ 12% per annum except for costs from the date of order till realization.
4. Opposite parties directed to comply with the above directions failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the amount of Rs.30,490+10000+5000 along with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization from the opposite parties and by charging on their assets both movable and immovable.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission on this the   31^st   day of  March 2023.

                Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

                                                                                Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

    Forwarded/by Order                                           

Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1              : tax invoice issued from the 1^st opposite party dated 10.06.2022. 

Ext.P2             : transaction details dated 10.06.2022

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil