T.Suresh Kumer filed a consumer case on 27 Nov 2018 against Ganapath Electronics ,shree Amaravathee Electonics India Pvt.ltd in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/105/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Feb 2019.
Complaint presented on: 01.04.2016
Order pronounced on: 27.11.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL : PRESIDENT
THIRU. D.BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc.,B.L., : MEMBER - I
TUESDAY THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
C.C.NO.105/2016
T.Sureshkumar,
S/o.C.Thankamony,
C-24, Venkatraman Salai,
Periyar Nagar,
Chennai – 600 082.
….. Complainant
..Vs..
1.The Proprietor,
Ganpath Electronics,
Authorised Service Agent for
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
New No.13, Old No.7,
Ramamurthy Colony Main Road,
T.V.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 082.
2. The Proprietor,
Shree Amaravathee Electronics,
No.16, Redhills Road,(Given up on 30.01.2017)
Chennai – 600 099.
Regional Office,
No.Aa11, Fathima Towers,(Impleaded as per order dated
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.CMP.No.109/2017)
….Opposite Parties
|
|
|
Date of complaint : 01.04.2016
Counsel for Complainant : M/s.M.Balasubramanian,
B.Dhiyaneswaran & Vennitharan
Counsel for 1 & 3 opposite parties : T.R.Kumaravel
Counsel for 2nd opposite party : Dismissed (on 03.01.2017)
as given up
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The 1st opposite party is the Proprietor Concern Ganapath Electronics, Authorized Service Agent for LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., The 3rd opposite party is LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office. The complainant purchased on LG One Ton Split AC No. RAC/Split/Lsa-3cr-2A/2011 with Stabilizer from the 2nd opposite party on 03.04.2011 under Bill No. 7013 at a cost of rs.20,000/- serial No.103 PAXL 01 3002 product Model No.L-crescent LSA 3- CRZA of 2011. From the very beginning, the AC could not be used for gas leak. Immediately after installation on two three occasions Technicians attended. First fault attended on 04.11.2011 by M/s.Ganapath Electronics, Chennai- 600 082 the 1st opposite party Vide Job No.RNA 110403037993. But the AC could not be got right. After that three or four call for repair was made to M/s.Ganapath Electronics the 1st opposite party. Every time some Technician will come and inspect the AC without undertaking any repairs and will inform that AC is alright . But the GAS Leak was a continuous process and after some time the AC stopped working. Then complainant reported the non-working condition of the AC through the toll free number of the LG company and being the authorized service agent, the 1st opposite party attended the call for repair. They have charged Rs.570/- and taken the compressor for repair on 21.08.2015. But their Technician has returned the compressor on 25.08.2015 without doing any repair work and informed that the compressor could not be repaired for want of suitable spare parts from the LG company and instructed to get new compressor. It all happened within the warranty period of compressor. The complainant requested the service agent the 1st opposite party to arrange to replace the non-working compressor with a new one as per the condition of warranty and also sent a Registered Post Letter to the authorized dealer – the 2nd opposite party. They have refused to receive the letter. After receipt of the letter employee of 1st opposite party contacted over phone and informed that they will repair the compressor within 15 days. But no such effort has been taken by them as promised. One Mr.Srinivasan contacted over phone and informed that he is the Area Service Manager for LG., AC and that the AC would be repaired shortly. Another Area Service Manager Mr. Raghavendra has also contacted over phone and assured proper service. But no action has been taken. In the process the complainant suffered very heavy monetary loss by way of cost of Rs.20,000/- for the AC and other incidental expenditure by way of repairs etc., and also suffered mental agony and inconvenience caused by the non-working of the AC for a long period. Hence the service of the LG company committed the deficiency in service and proper compensation may be ordered for the monetary loss suffered in this matter and also the mental agony undergone by the complainant and his family comprising aged parents and a small child. The complainant estimates the loss of Air-conditioner service for the past two years at Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses apart from payment of the value of Airconditioner at Rs.20,000/- in all Rs.1,45,000/-.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY ADOPTED BY 3rd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The complainant had purchased 1-Ton Split AC bearing No.RAC/Split/LSA-3cr-2A/2011 from the 2nd opposite party who is the retailer of LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd.,. It was true that the said AC was installed at the house of the complainant way back in the year 2011 by the staff of the 1st opposite party on 02.04.2011 and subsequently the complainant had informed to M/s.L.G Electronic that the AC has got some fault in the month of November 2011. Even the installation of the AC in April 2011 was done by the 1st opposite party based on the instruction given LG Electronics which was represented by its Area Manager Mr.Srinivasan having office at AA-11 2nd Avenue, Fathima Towers, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600 040. Subsequently the complainant had confronted some fault in the said AC and again given complaint to LG Electronics at their office situated at No.07, Ramamurthy Colony Main Road, Thiru-vi-ka Nagar, Chennai-82. Based on the said complaint initiated by the complainant against LG. Electronics, the Area Manager had instructed the 1st opposite party vide Job No.RNA 110403037993 to attend the fault reported by the complainant. Based on the said instruction given by LG Electronics represented by its Area Manager, the staff of the 1st opposite party had attended the said fault on 04.11.2011 and the fault indicated by the complainant was rectified. The job call attended by the 1st opposite party either for installation or for rectifying the fault of any product of the LG Electronics, the service charges based on the said job number will be reimbursed to the 1st opposite party by the Area Manager of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., In other words the attending of service call is based on the instruction by the Area Manager of LG Electronics and not by the 2nd opposite party by the complainant. This vital fact would reveal that the first opposite party is in no way connected with this complaint preferred by the complainant before this Forum. There is no Prima Faci privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party who is the authorized agent of LG Electronics in doing the installation/service works based on the instructions of the Area Manager of LG Electronics, hence the liability cannot be fastened on this opposite party.
3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?
04. POINT NO :1
The purchased of LG One Ton Split AC No. RAC/Split/Lsa-3cr-2A/2011 with Stabilizer from the 2nd opposite party on 03.04.2011 under Bill No7013at a cost of Rs.20,000/- serial no103 PAXL 01 3002 Product with Warranty Card is Ex.A1 series, and it was given for service to 1st opposite party are admitted facts. Ex.A3 is A/C installation report at the residential address of the Complainant by 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is the authorized service Agent of L.G. Electronics Pvt., Ltd. Third opposite party is LG Electronics Pvt., Ltd. When the fault of Gas Leakage was reported to the 1st opposite party on 04.11.2011, it was attended by them. The complainant contends that the Gas leakage was a continuous process and A/C. Stopped working then. It was also attended by 1st opposite party when the fault was reported to them. Even then, the functioning of A/C was not alright and it stopped working. After repeated calls and reports, the Technician of 1st opposite party had taken the Compressor for repair and returned informing that it could not be repaired due to non-availability of Spare-parts from L.G. Company. Though assurances through phone was given by the employee of the 1st opposite party, no further action was taken even within the warranty period. Hence the claim for deficiency in service is filed by the complainant.
05. The opposite parties resisted the complaint in their written version replying that the fault is not only the Compressor, but also the fault of Aluminum Condenser Coil and the coil also needs replacement. But the condenser coil repair cannot be done due to the expiry of warranty period. Even then, the 1st opposite party tried his level best to get the coil and could not get the spare parts. Hence Alternate suggestion was given to the complainant to replace the old A/C with new A/C for 15% reduction in price if he purchases the product from the same dealer or issue a cheque for 15% amount of purchase will be given. It was not accepted by the Complainant and the complaint is filed by creating concocted story to grab huge money from the opposite parties.
06. The Compressor was taken by the opposite parties as per the complainant and returned to the complainant informing that the compressor could not be repaired for want of suitable spare parts, Whereas as per the version of 1st & 3rd opposite parties the outdoor unit was taken by the opposite parties and there was a fault in Aluminum condenser coil, which has to be replaced. No Document is filed on behalf of the opposite parties to substantiate the version of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. On the side of the complainant the service receipt submitted as Ex.A3 is a relevant one. It is given by the opposite parties to the complainant on receipt of service charges for repair and maintenance .Description of the item taken for service and the service to be done is not mentioned. It is the duty of the opposite parties to mention the item taken for service and to record the complaints of the article taken, but opposite parties has failed to do the same and also has not produced any documents to prove their contention of the fault of the condenser coil . The complainant has written to the 1st opposite party on 29.02.2016 in Ex.A6 letter and it was received by the 1st opposite party in Ex.A7 acknowledgement. There is no reply from the 1st opposite party denying the contents of the letter. The contents of the letter reveals only regarding the repair or to replace of the Compressor only, under such circumstances, this forum has to believe the contention of the complainant as true and an acceptable one. The service requirement of the Compressor is within the warranty period admittedly. It is also an admitted fact that area Managers of L.G. Electronics have contacted the complainant and also the 1st opposite party had attended and acted upon the instructions of L.G. Electronics. Therefore this forum comes to the conclusion that the opposite parties 1 and 3 neither cared to do service nor to replace the compressor as requested by the complainant within the Warranty period. The 1st opposite party is the authorized service centre of 3rd opposite party and also admittedly the repair was undertaken by the 1st opposite party under the instructions of the 3rd opposite party, both were negligent and responsible for deficiency in service.
07. POINT NO:2
The complainant would have suffered with his family for want of proper functioning of A/C, hence the complainant is to be compensated, it would also be appropriate to order Rs.50,000/ as compensation for the loss caused to the complainant and mental agony besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses. Already the complaint against 2nd opposite party was dismissed as given up by the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st & 3rd opposite parties jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation for the loss and mental agony caused to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. (The complaint against the 2nd opposite party was dismissed on 03.01.2017 as given up by the complainant).
The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26th day of November 2018.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 03.04.2011 Cash Receipt of the 2nd opposite party with
warranty Card
Ex.A2 dated 04.04.2011 Installation report given by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3 dated 21.08.2015 AC taken for repair from the complainant’s House
by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4 dated 20.02.2016 Letter copy sent to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A5 dated 22.02.2016 Returned cover from the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A6 dated 29.02.2016 Letter copy sent to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7 dated 01.03.2016 Acknowledgement Card from the 1st opposite party
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :
…… NIL ……
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.