Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/120/2015

IFB Industries Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurmeet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Kukreja, Adv.

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	120 of 2015
Date of Institution	29.05.2015
Date of Decision	03.06.2015

 

IFB Industries Limited through its Regional Accountant, Plot No.640-A, Industrial Area, Phase IX, Mohali in complaint mentioned as IFB Industries Flag No. Ind.5, Sector 1, East Calcutta Township, Kolkatta – 780088, West Bengal, India through Proprietor.

                                    …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

                                Versus

1. Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Ranjit Singh resident of House Number 400/A, Dashmesh Nagar, Ward No.1, Sector 15, Kharar, SAS Nagar.

                                        …..Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Broadway Agencies, SCO No.368, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through Proprietor.  

                              …..Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1.

BEFORE:    SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.04.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.483 of 2014, filed by the complainant, with the following directions:-

“12. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed.  OP-2 is directed as under :-

i)      To make payment of a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for mental and physical harassment caused to him and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.

ii)     To pay Rs.7,500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

13.        This order be complied with by OP-2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.

14.        The complaint qua OP-1 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased IFB 1.5 ton (Split) Air Conditioner from Broadway Agencies (Opposite Party No.1) vide bill/invoice dated 12.06.2013 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.31,500/-, which also included a stabilizer alongwith.  It was stated that the seller/Company gave one year warranty of machine and 5 years warranty of compressor of Air Conditioner (Annexure C-2).  It was further stated that after one month from the date of its purchase, the Air Conditioner started showing defect and was producing warm air, instead of cooling. The complainant telephonically contacted the concerned authorities four times. It was further stated that on verification of the AC unit, the Company representatives asked that a stabilizer with more capacity was required for proper cooling. Accordingly, the stabilizer (which came alongwith the unit) was taken back in exchange of another stabilizer with higher capacity, after charging additional amount of Rs.3500/-. It was further stated that after installation of the new stabilizer, the defect persisted and the Company representatives did nothing thereafter, and the summer season went past so on.  It was further stated that during the current summer season, the said Air Conditioner again started showing the same defect and instead of producing cooling, it was blowing warm air after passage of 1 hour. Consequently, again the Company authorities were contacted by the complainant telephonically on 29.04.2014 and received ticket No.12806940 over mobile phone (Annexure C-3).  Subsequently, the Company Executive visited the house after a week and stated that the compressor of the unit required replacement. It was further stated that after repeated telephonic requests, the Company authorities finally installed a new compressor after a week but no sign of improvement was seen in the functioning of Air Conditioner and it was again producing warm air alongwith loud sound.   It was further stated that upon complaint of 26.05.2014 the complainant again received ticket over his mobile phone (Annexure C-4), after which, Mr. Pargat, Company Executive visited him and stated that the A.C. would be replaced by the Company and filled his job sheet. It was further stated that on further complaint on 09.06.2014 the complainant again received ticket over his mobile phone (Annexure C-6), after which, Mr. Rabbeen & Mrs. Vikram, Company Executives visited the complainant and stated that the A.C. would be replaced by the Company very soon but they failed to do so, despite complaints and letter dated 27/28.6.2014 (Annexure C-8) alongwith an email (Annexure C-9) by him. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties but on 12.11.2014 Opposite Party No.1 did not appear, despite service. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.11.2014.

4.              In its written statement, Opposite Party No.2, admitted the factum of purchase of Split Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1, which carried one year limited warranty extended by Opposite Party No.2.  It was denied that the seller/Company gave one year warranty of machine and 5 years warranty of compressor of Air Conditioner.  It was further stated that the complainant failed to place on record the warranty terms extended over the Air Conditioner and 5 years warranty over the compressor. It was further stated that the Split Air Conditioner supplied to the complainant was not suffering from any of the manufacturing defects and that the stabilizer was not a part of the standard unit.  It was denied that the A.C. started giving warm air and stabilizer was replaced. It was further stated that the Split Air Conditioner was working properly, but still for the redressal of the grouses of the complainant, the same was replaced to his entire satisfaction.  It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.             The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written reply of Opposite Party No.2, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2. 

6.             The complainant and Opposite Party No.2 led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2, as stated above. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.            The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there was no evidence on record that the previous appliance (Air Conditioner) utilized by respondent No.1/complainant was suffering from any manufacturing defect and as per the comments of the complainant given on the job card dated 12.06.2014, it was claimed that he was not satisfied with the service issue and was interested for replacement of the A.C.. He further submitted that the A.C was working properly and was not suffering from any manufacturing defect but still for the entire satisfaction of the complainant, the appellant replaced the A.C. without having any knowledge of the pendency of the complaint, on 22.07.2014 and he accepted the replacement of the appliance, without any protest.  He further submitted that nothing was brought on record by the complainant to prove that the A.C. purchased by him was blowing warm air and was not cooling. He further submitted that on receipt of the request from the complainant, the technician of the appellant visited his house and attended the complaint of the complainant promptly and swiftly. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

11.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.            The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum rightly granted compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The answer, to this, is in the affirmative. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one split Air Conditioner from Broadway Agencies, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.1) vide invoice No.17333 dated 12.06.2013 for a total sum of Rs.31,500/- (Annexure C-1) alongwith stablizer. A bare perusal of the warranty card (Annexure C-2) shows that the same was not filled up and signed by Opposite Party No.1, when the A.C. was sold to the complainant. It is the duty of the appellant/Opposite No.2 to fill up the warranty card when the product was sold to the customer but it did not do so and, as such, the District Forum rightly held that the same made it clear that the Opposite Parties had given one year warranty on the machine and five years warranty on the compressor.  It is, no doubt, true that after the filing of the complaint, before the District Forum, on 18.07.2014, Opposite Party No.2 replaced the split A.C. of the complainant with a new one vide Goods Delivery Challan (Annexure C-11) dated 22.07.2014. As per the allegations of the complainant, before the District Forum, from the very beginning the A.C. produced warm air instead of cooling and he made numerous efforts for rectification of the said defect. In this regard, the complainant had placed on record Annexure C-3, before the District Forum, and stated that he made the complaint on telephone on 29.04.2014, for which, the Company issued ticket No.12806940 over mobile phone. As per the averments of the complainant, before the District Forum, the Company Executive visited his house and stated that the compressor of the A.C. required replacement and, the Executive visited his house four times and, finally took over the compressor with him for replacement and, thereafter, a new compressor was installed after a week but there was no sign of improvement in the functioning of the AC.  It is also proved from Annexure C-4 that the complainant again made a complaint on 26.05.2014, for which, the Company provided ticket No.13021834 over mobile phone to him.  Thereafter, the Company Executive i.e. Mr.Pargat visited the house of the complainant and stated that the A.C. would be replaced by the Company and filled his job sheet but no copy of the job sheet was given to him and, as such, at the same time, he was able to click the photograph of job sheet on his mobile phone (Annexure C-5).  It is also proved that the complainant again made a complaint, for which, he was received ticket No.13112437 (Annexure C-6) over mobile phone. Annexure C-7 is a copy of the job card/installation sheet. From this document, it is proved that Mr. Rabbeen and Mrs. Vikram, Company Executives visited the house of the complainant for attending the complaint and as per the complainant, he was also assured to replace the A.C. by the Company very soon but the copy of the said job card was not provided to him and he took the image of the job card (Annexure C-7) over phone. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant had written a note in Annexure C-7 that he was not satisfied with the service and wanted replacement of the A.C. immediately and the said job card was duly signed by him. Moreover, it is proved from the copies of job sheets (Annexure C-5, C-7) that there was a problem with the compressor of the A.C., and  the complainant made a remark on the job sheet. Even the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 did not produce the copies of the job sheets available with it to show as to what was recorded by its employees on these two job sheets. As per the complainant, the Company Executives and Managers assured him for replacement of the A.C. but Opposite Party No.2 failed to file an affidavit of any of the Company Executives and Managers to prove that they had not assured him for replacement of the A.C. Now, the plea of the appellant that the A.C., which was utilized by the complainant, was working properly and not suffering from any manufacturing defect but still for the entire satisfaction of the complainant, it (appellant) replaced the A.C., without having any knowledge of the pendency of the complaint, on 22.07.2014, has no force, at all. The contention of appellant/Opposite Party No.2 that A.C. of the complainant was working properly is not on sound footing when after the filing of the complaint, the appellant immediately replaced the A.C. with a new one. There was no transparency in the working of appellant for redressing complainant’s grievance. The Company was clearly at fault because it did not provide the copy of the job sheet, after attending the complaints. It may be stated here that the complainant asked the concerned authorities to replace his A.C., vide letter dated 27/28.6.2014 (Annexure C-8) alongwith an email (Annexure C-10) but still no action was taken by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2. It is also proved from the record that in fact, the employees of Opposite Party No.2 time and again assured the complainant that his A.C. would be replaced and the same was ultimately replaced on 22.07.2014 (Annexure C-11), after filing of the complaint before the District Forum, which itself shows that the said AC was suffering from a manufacturing defect. Even though Opposite Party No.2 did not file the copy of warranty terms extended by it and self-explanatory copy of the limited warranty extended over the AC, is clearly proved that the A.C. was within the warranty period, when the defect and deficiency was pointed out by the complainant. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly held the manufacturer liable for deficiency and it also rightly compensated the complainant.  The appellant/Opposite Party replaced the A.C. after repeated complaints by the complainant which definitely caused lot of
harassment and mental agony to the complainant  and therefore, appellant/Opposite Party No.2  cannot be absolved from its liability to compensate the
complainant for harassment and deficiency in service on its part.

13.            Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the District Forum was right, in partly allowing the complaint, as stated above.   Hence, the order passed by the District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

03.06.2015                                                               sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

 PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb