Delhi

East Delhi

CC/318/2019

NEERAJ TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ & BOYCE - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.318/2019

 

	NEERAJ TYAGI S/O LATE SHRI S.P. TYAGI R/O I-602, MAYURDHWAJ APARTMENT, PLOT NO. 60, I.P. EXTENSION, PATPARGANJ, NEW DELHI-110092	….Complainant
Versus
	M/S GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. HAVING ITS DELHI OFFICE AT: GODREJ BHAWAN, SECOND FLOOR, SHER SHAH SURI MARG, OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110065	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 15.10.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 02.03.2023

Judgment Passed on: 06.03.2023

               

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member) - On Leave

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

The Complainant in his complaint has alleged deficiency of service on the part of OP in not giving proper service to the AC which he had purchased despite of having AMC during the relevant period.    

The Complainant in his complaint has contended that he had purchased one window Air Conditioner of Godrej Company bearing Model No. Godrej A/C GWC 18GQ3(W) on 15.06.2014 from Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. and he was issued Invoice No.4872 for Rs.23,300/-.  The initial warranty was for one year and the complainant got extended warranty for the period 14.06.2015 to 13.06.2019 vide application number 1945813 after paying an amount of Rs.5355/-.  This extended AMC was done by the complainant after receiving repeated calls from Godrej Smart Care i.e. Call Centre of OP. Again in the month of May 2019 (wrongly written as June 2019) he was approached by the officials of the OP for renewal of AMC in advance and on 14.06.2019 (but as per document it is dated 04.05.2019) he got further AMC extended in advance for next two successive years from 14.06.2019 to 13.06.2020 vide application number 180415732 dated 04.05.2019 by paying Rs.2566/- and from 14.06.2020 to 13.06.2021 vide application number 180415733 by paying Rs.2533/-. 

After around 27 days of execution of the new AMCs (in advance) on 04.05.2019 the complainant made a request for regular service vide request number D3105288505 and one technician name Mr. Hilal visited the premises on 01.06.2019 and did the washing of the AC but while he was putting back the AC in the window he broke some part of the AC as a result of which there was loud sound with leakage of gas and the AC after installation did not work at all.  Immediately, the complainant and also his son Mr. Naman Tyagi called Toll Free number of the OP and apprised them about the entire gas leak issue and they were advised to contact one Mr. Ankit on mobile number 9971300573 and on contacting Mr. Ankit he told that soon a technician would visit the premises of the complainant and solve the entire issue. 

The complainant has also stated in his complaint that during the relevant period of this incident i.e. end of May 2019, the temperature was hovering around 46-48 degrees and the AC was installed in the room of his son, who was doing Bachelors of Engineering and his exams were to start in the month of June 2019 and this was highly precious time for the son of the complainant for his studies. 

No technician visited on 02.06.2019 and when the complainant contacted Mr. Ankit again after making several calls then finally one Mr. Danish visited the premises of the complainant and after inspecting the AC he told the Son of the complainant Mr. Naman Tyagi that entire cooling coil along with condenser of the AC is required to be changed as they are damaged at the time of re-installation of the AC back in the window on 01.06.2019.  Since, Mr. Danish could not write in English, the Son of the complainant wrote the said advice on a paper which Mr. Danish signed. 

On 04.06.2019 the complainant made complaint to Call Centre of the OP to expedite the repair/ replacement work as the studies of his Son were suffering badly on account of non-working of AC. On the next day i.e. 05.06.2019 the complainant received two SMS from OP regarding call ID D0506291714 informing that one Mr. Muzamir Khan would be visiting the residence of the complainant on 09.06.2019 and in the second SMS it was mentioned that one Mohd. Shadan would visit him on 10.06.2019.  The complainant was also provided three telephone numbers as follows which he was given for further redressal of his grievance:

• Mr. Ankit, Supervisor 9971300573
• Mr. Aptar, 8285323874
• Ms. Anshu, 8287466152

Complainant kept on contacting these numbers but there was no solution and on 08.06.2019 he got a call from Mr. Avtar informing him that he had placed order for the component which is to be replaced by the company which he will receive next day and replace the same in the AC on 09.06.2019.  However, nobody came on 09.06.2019 and despite of making calls from 10.06.2019 till 30.06.2019 his complaint was not redressed and he suffered inconvenience/harassment with regard to the studies of his Son as his Son had to manage his studies in the room of his mother of 78 years who was also put on lot of inconvenience.

Alleging deficiency of service the complainant has sought the following prayer:

• Pay to the complainant the amount of air- conditioner which is Rs.23,300/-  (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Three only) because the same has been damaged due to negligence of the official of the OP as detailed in the complaint. 

 

• Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5099/-(i.e. Rs.2566/- + Rs.2533/-) the amount of the two AMC entered into by the OP with the complainant on 04.05.2019.

 

• Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, physical pain, suffering etc. and the loss/ inconvenience in studies caused to the son of the complainant during his exams,  

 

• Cost of the litigation amounting to Rs.50,000/-.

 

• Any other order or relief which this Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party, in the interest of justice.

 

Notice was issued and OP has filed its reply stating that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction and the complaint is also liable to be dismissed as the complainant has not made the dealer- M/s Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. and Authorized Service Centre – Summer Cool Air Condition as Party in the case.  There was no manufacturing defect in the AC of the OP and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP.  The complainant has not filed any photograph of the said AC to substantiate his complaint.  The Authorized Service Centre usually approach customers through telephone to renew their existing/ expiring AMC and the AMC/ contract was updated in the smartnet done by Mr. Deepak Arora from Nanak Services. The gas in the AC was filed by technician from Summer Cool Air Condition however they have not been made party in the case.  The complainant has also not filed details of repeated call record made to Mr. Ankit.  The complaint was booked on 05.06.2019 vide number 291714 from mobile number 850042573.  Mr. Avtar is owner of Summercool Air Condition who has not been a party.  Upon receiving the complaint technician visited the premises of the complaint but complainant did not allow the technician to inspect the same and the complaint filed by the complainant as not maintainable. 

Complainant has filed Rejoinder denying the contents of reply of OP and has stated that privity of contract between him and OP can be seen from the AMC which is on the printed format of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. i.e. OP and SMS messages were sent by the OP to the complainant copy of which he has enclosed with the Rejoinder.  The OP itself has admitted that ‘one application has been currently updated which is running till June, 2020’ which shows that there is privity of contract between the complainant and the OP and OP has also admitted that the complaint was received from mobile number 8588042573 which is the mobile number of Mr. Naman Tyagi, Son of the Complainant.

The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:

• Photocopy of the Purchase Bill dated 15.6.2014 exhibited as EX.CW1/1.
• Photocopy of the 1^st AMC dated 13.06.2015 exhibited as is EX.CW1/2.
• Photocopy of the 2^nd AMC dated 04.05.2019 exhibited as is EX.CW1/3.
• Photocopy of the 3^rd AMC dated 04.05.2019 exhibited as EX.CW1/4.
• The terms and conditions of the AMC and AC exhibited as EX.CW1/5.
• Photocopy of written statement given by Danish exhibited as EX.CW1/6.
• Copy of all the SMSs from complainant’s side collectively exhibited as EX.CW1/6.

The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record including the written arguments filed by both the parties. The crux of the matter is that OP issued AMC to the complainant and during the existence of the period of AMC w.e.f. 14.04.2015 to 13.06.2019 although he got two AMCs in advance i.e. w.e.f. 14.06.2019 to 13.06.2020 and w.e.f. 14.06.2020 to 13.06.2021, the complainant requested for service of the AC on 31/05/2019 i.e. when the AMC w.e.f. 14.06.2015 to 13.06.2019 was still in existence and valid and one technician/service person of the OP visited the residence of the complainant on 01/06/2018 (Again written incorrectly, as it should be 01.06.2019) but after servicing the AC and during the process when the AC was being installed by the service person it got damaged and thereafter it was not repaired. Later, OP sent its technician who observed it that something has been broken by the technician/service person while installing the AC on 01/06/2018 (Again wrongly written by the complainant as it should be 01.06.2019) and subsequently also informed that order has been placed to replace this damaged parts of the AC but thereafter despite repeated calls, the AC was not replaced/repaired/part of the AC was not rectified due to which complainant and his family suffered mental harassment and inconvenience.

The contention of the OP that this Forum does not have any territorial jurisdiction is not well found as the residence of the complainant is within the jurisdiction of this Commission and service of the AC has been done by the technician/service person of the OP is also within the jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. As far as manufacturing defect is concerned, the present complaint is not at all for removing any manufacturing defect rather the case of the complainant is that he obtained an AMC from OP and while doing the service of AC by the technician/service person of OP on 01/06/2019 the AC got damaged therefore neither the complainant is alleging manufacturing defect nor he is asking for the replacement of the AC on account of the manufacturing defect. Therefore this argument of the OP is of no consequence and does not hold good.      

Once AMC during the relevant period i.e. on 01.06.2019, as per original AMC w.r.t. 14.06.2015 to 13.06.2019 is in continuation then further AMC has been done by one Mr. Deepak Arora, from Nanak Service Ltd. is not a relevant fact nor the same is necessary party, as AMC has been done by OP on its letter head (See Exhibit CW-1/2 to CW-1/5) and on the AMC it is specifically written ‘Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.’ and therefore, there is privity of contract between the complainant and the OP. Further, once principal has been made a party, other agent/agency or outsourced agency are not required to be added and act of the agent binds the principal. Not only this as per the written arguments filed,  OP itself admitted fact that the complaint was reviewed on 05.06.2019 vide Diary no. 291714 by OP and OP further admits that technician was ready to visit the premise but could not visit as the complainant was not available. The visit of the technician is also admitted. The AC got damaged during the installation of the same on 01/06/2019, after the washing/service is also not disputed and therefore the contention of OP as raised in its written arguments do not support its version.  The fact remains that complainant had AMC w.r.t. service part and the AMC was valid on 01.06.2019 and this AMC  is the initial AMC which was in operation w.e.f. 14.06.2015 to 13.06.2019. Request for regular service of the AC was made by the complainant and technician attended the same and thereafter the AC got damaged while re-fixing, are the undisputed facts.

The question which is relevant is as to what are the terms and conditions of the AMC. There are no specific terms and conditions attached with the AMC which would guide us as to what are the liabilities of the OP in case of any mishappening or in case of not providing AMC as per the agreement or in case of any mishandling.  Once there are no terms and conditions, the natural law/rule of law would prevail that a person obtains AMC for his convenience and in case, any problem arises then the proposer of AMC should not visit so many persons rather approach company and the company’s Authorized Service Centre would get the fault removed, with the surety that the services on the basis of AMC are being done by the authorized service centre of the manufacturer itself and in this case it is not disputed that AMC is of the OP and it is also not in dispute that AC of Complainant got damaged at the hands of the technician/service person sent by the OP’s Authorized Service Centre. In the entire written statement filed by OP or in its evidence nowhere it has been contended that there is no damage by the service person of the OP nor it has been stated that the damage has been caused on account of the certain instructions given by the complainant.  Therefore it can be easily inferred that the person sent by the Authorized Service Centre of the OP was not qualified enough to do the work assigned to him or the OP negligently employs such unqualified person just to defraud its customers i.e. taking money from the consumers in the name of AMC and then send anybody who is not qualified to do the assigned job of servicing of AC which could have caused even damage to the house of the person who got the AMC as there was blast and leakage of gas from AC in this present case therefore there is complete negligence and deficiency on the part of OP.

Now, coming to the relief part, the Commission is of the opinion that the AC was purchased in 2014 and the incidence happened in 2019 and thereby the complainant has used this AC for about 5 years, keeping in view totality of the circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that full reimbursement of the AC cost would not be justified therefore this Commission hereby orders that OP would pay 50% of the total cost of the AC i.e. Rs. 11,650/- to the complainant for damaging the AC and as far as compensation w.r.t. negligence handling of the AC by the service person, OP is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as the compensation.

Since, the utility of next 2 AMCs for the period from 14.06.2019 to 13.06.2020 and 14.06.2020 to 13.06.2021 which was taken by the Complainant in advance did not remain in force after the AC itself got damaged by the service person of OP and that contract also stand discharged.  It is ordered that OP would return the amount of Rs.5099/- to the Complainant which it received in advance towards further AMCs.                           

 

• This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which OP shall pay interest @ 7% p.a. on the above amounts from date of this order.
• Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
• File be consigned to Record Room.
• Announced on 06.03.2023.