Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/75/2018

S.Vaithiyalingam, S/o.T.Subramani - Complainant(s)

Versus

ETA General P Ltd Rep by its Director & Girias Investment P Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.Muthu Kumar

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

                                                                   Complaint presented on:19.06.2018                                                               

                                                         Date of disposal            :17.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                   TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                             : MEMBER-1

                                THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.75/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

​

S.Vaithiyalingam

So.T.Subranmani

No.18, New.43, Nethaji Nagar 5^th street,

Chennai-600 081.                                                …..​Complainant

 

1. ETA General Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director,

ETA House, 3^rd floor,

No.71/63, Sterling Road,

Opp.Loyola College,

Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

 

2. Girias Investment Private Limited,

Rep.by its Director,

No.18, Harbour Square,

Cemetry Road, Old Washermenpet,

Chennai-600 021.

                                                          ….     Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for the complainant                      :M/s.R.Muthukumar and 1 other

Counsel for the opposite parties              :M/s.K.Jayaraman and 2 others.

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.    : PRESIDENT     

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this commission to replace the defective Air conditioner and to pay a sum of Rs.75000/- to the complainant towards the compensation for the mental agony caused due to deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he has purchased a O-General Air Conditioner ASGA18JCC (1.5 Ton) – Air Condition Inverter –General with installation for a sum of Rs.60900/- on 18.06.2017 from the 2^nd opposite party and manufactured the product by 1^st opposite party with one year warranty. The complainant paid Rs.8390/- as installation charge. The complainant stated that the Air Conditioner was not having cooling effect at all, he had made several complaints to the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defect and the 1^st opposite party service persons attended for the service for more than three times as per their warranty but the defect was not rectified. The complainant lodged a complaint the 1^st opposite party’s service persons attended the service and not rectified the defect and gave false replies. The complainant stated that the 1^st opposite party manufactured the defective Air conditioner and the 1^st opposite party is not properly rendered the service under warranty and the above act is nothing but deficiency of service and cause mental agony to complainant. The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties on 22.02.2018 for which a false reply was given by the opposite party.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation.  Hence the complaint.  

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:-

          The opposite parties deny allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitter hereunder and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party submitted that the complainant has purchased the Air Conditioner on 18.06.2017 and installed by the opposite party on 21.06.2017 and the said AC was cooling fine to the complainant entire satisfaction. The complainant has registered a complaint in the customer care on 16.02.2018 for AC is not working. Immediately the opposite parties technician attend the complaint and checked the AC condition and he found that gas leak in the indoor coil or pipe line and the same intimated to the complainant, the opposite party informed to the complainant the product is under warranty and to replace  the indoor coil with free of cost. But the complainant refused the same and he want to replace the AC. Further the complainant sent a legal to the opposite party on 22.02.2018 and the reply on 12.03.2018.  The opposite party stated that the replacement with new air conditioner that is not permissible as per the warranty terms and conditions. Again the complainant after 7 months on 18.10.2018 registered a complaint of the same problem, but the complainant has not allow the opposite party technician to replace the indoor coil, they want to replace the AC. The opposite parties has not sold AC with manufacturing defect. Hence there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged in the complainant.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant has filed written argument, proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked on their side.The opposite party have filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on his side.

4. Point No.1.

                    The fact that the complainant has purchased (1.5 Ton) – Air Conditioner on 18.06.2017 for Rs.60900/- from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and it is covered under one year warranty were not in dispute between the parties, but according to the complainant there was no cooling effect from the date of purchase hence he made a several complaints to the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defects but the defects was not rectified further according to him since the product is covered under warranty they have to replace the air conditioner and pay compensation for the deficiency in service for not rectifying the defect and for having sold the product which is having manufacturing defect.

          5. But on the otherhand the opposite party contended that the AC was installed on 21.06.2017 by a technician who checked and found the AC working in good condition and also having fine cooling effect and eight months later on 16.02.2018 the complainant registered a complaint with the customer care stating AC is not working and when a technician attended the same at the complainant’s house it was found there was gas leakage in the indoor coil which was informed to the complainant and since the product is under warranty the opposite parties were ready to replace the indoor coil with free of cost. But the complainant refused and wanted to replace the AC itself and as per the terms and conditions of the warranty clause No.3(a) and 3(b) if any part of the air conditioner is found defective it shall be replaced or repaired by the company or authorized dealer and accordingly they were ready to replace the indoor coil for which he refused and hence the opposite party alleged that there is no deficiency in service and further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the air conditioner and hence there is no unfair trade practice.

          6. It is found from Ex.A1 that the complainant purchased 1.5 ton AC on 18.06.2017 from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  Though the complainant has stated that from the date of purchase the AC was not working and there was no cooling effect there is no documentary proof for the same.  Further the complainant has not stated any specific repair or defect in the Air conditioner except by saying that there is no cooling effect for which there is no proof.  Eight months after purchase of AC Ex.A2 legal notice was issued by the complainant alleging there was no cooling effect in the AC.  Thought the complainant alleged that he has lodged a several complaints to the opposite parties there is no proof for the same.  It is found from Ex.A4 reply that immediately after the complainant reported no cooling effect the service engineers attended the problem and resolved the issue but later when the opposite parties were ready to replace the particular defective part, it is found that the complainant did not allow the technician to inspect and replace the defective part for which the opposite party cannot be held liable as they were ready to replace the defective part as per the clause in terms and conditions of the warranty.  Merely because there was no cooling effect in the AC the complainant is not entitled to allege that the AC had manufacturing defect and further is not entitled to replace the entire AC itself. The complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the AC by any expert evidence.  The complainant failed to prove alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.. Point NO.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2

          Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since the complainant failed to prove the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of Air Conditioner and compensation as claimed in the complaint .  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

                   In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17^th  day of November 2022.

 

MEMBER  I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	18.06.2017	Invoice of Air Conditioner
Ex.A2	22.02.2018	Legal notice.
Ex.A3		Acknowledgement card.
Ex.A4	12.03.2018	Reply from the 1st opposite party.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:-

-NIL-

MEMBER – I                            MEMBER II                       PRESIDENT