Order-11.
Date-06/05/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that on 05-06-2012 he purchased one 1.5 Ton Split Haier Air Conditioner (Model HSU – 18LK6B2) for a total price of Rs.23,800/- from OP6 and after few days of installation of the said Air Conditioner complainant faced low cooling problem from the said air conditioner and with the passage of time and usage the condition deteriorated. Thereafter, complainant registered one complaint to the customer care of the OP1 and based upon the aid complaint the engineer visited the complainant’s residence where the air conditioner is installed and did some adjustment and he also assured the complainant that from then onward the air conditioner will work properly and sufficiently cool and relying upon their statement complainant used it but after that it was found that performance of the said air conditioner was not up to the satisfaction level and again faced problem of low cooling and he further began to face some other problems subsequently in the month of May, 2013 again complainant lodged complaint with the customer care of the OP1 regarding the problem he has faced and based upon the said complaint engineer visited twice and again did some adjustment and finally he gave opinion that the complainant is facing such problem due to low voltage and asked the complainant to purchase a stabilizer for the said air conditioner and as per the engineers verdict and instructions complainant contacted the OP6 from where he purchased the air conditioner, when OP6 gave an email id of Mr. Susanta Bhowmick and asked the complainant to sent one mail to him describing the entire problem he was facing and OP6 also assured the complainant to give best of his service so that the problem of the complainant may be resolved. Subsequently, on 04-05-2013 complainant sent one mail to Mr. Susanta Bhowmick the employee of the OP1 with a copy of the same to the OP6 stating the entire problem what the complainant had been facing in respect of the air conditioner and complainant requested him to send some expert engineer and to resolve the problem at the earliest but not getting any response complainant again contacted the OP6 and narrated the problem and OP6 gave then an email id of the Zonal Service Manager and asked to again send the mail to Mr. Susanta Bhowmick marking a copy of the mail to the Zonal Service Manager and the complainant again sent one mail to Mr. Susanta Bhowmick the employee of the OP1 with a copy of the same to the OP6 and Zonal Sales Manager of the OP1 asking them to resolve the problem and on 08-05-2013 OP4 sent a reply mail with a copy of the mail being sent to Mr. Susanta Bhowmick and Mr. Joydeep, ZSM East and asked the complainant to install a Voltage Stabilizer at complainant’s residence and he also asked the complainant to inform him after installation of the stabilizer at his residence when he will send the technician for further check up and he assured the complainant to give best services in this regard. Thereafter, complainant again went to the OP6 informing the total facts and OP6 asked him to do as per their instruction and direction of the OP4 and asked him to purchase the voltage stabilizer and thereafter, complainant purchased it and installed it to his residence but the same problem of low cooling existed after installation of the stabilizer. Again complainant mailed to the OP4 on 20-05-2013 with a copy to Mr. Susanta Bhowmick and Mr. Joydeep, ZSM east and asked the OP4 to arrange to send engineer at his residence but against that no response was sent from the OPs. Subsequently the technician of the OP1 visited complainant’s residence and this time the technician opined that the compressor and other few parts of the air conditioner were out of order for which complainant is facing low cooling problem and those needs to be replaced. Thereafter, on 28-05-2013 complainant sent further reminder but the technician and intimated the opinion given by the technician of the OP1 and asking different opinions of technician from time to time but they are unable to repair and complainant asked to replace within 7 days and after that complainant made several reminders to the OP but they did not reply and also did not take any initiative for repair or replacement of the same and ultimately finding no result investing such an amount and bearing hot weather complainant was compelled to file this complaint after serving legal notice against them but they are found silent and considering selling of defective machine and for not giving proper service complainant was compelled to file this complaint for redressal.
On the other hand, OPs1 to 5 by filing a written version submitted that OP engineer visited two times and the said two times for assistance and check up of the said machine and to run smoothly and further assured that the OP will send technician for further check up for any problem but the demand of the complainant is made absolutely illegal after lapse of warranty period and it was further stated by them that they assured the complainant that any problem in future regarding the said air conditioner machine will be chargeable by the OP and the instant case is not maintainable in view of the fact that warranty period was for three months and within that period no problem was detected so, present OPs have no liability and for which the complaint should be dismissed. But OP6 has not filed any written statement to contest the case.
Decision with Reasons
In this case after proper assessment of the complaint and the written version and also considering the argument including the letter of the OP1 dated 07-10-2014 it is clear that the expert of the OP1 inspected the said machine and found compressor and other parts are out of order and it need to be replaced but another expert had different view and asked for purchasing a stabilizer but even after purchasing of stabilizer the fund cannot be cured. But fact remains since purchase complainant has been knocked at the door of the OP by sending email after email.
From the letter dated 07-10-2014 issued by the OP it is clear that OP asked the complainant to purchase a voltage stabilizer 230 volt to run smoothly the air conditioner and complainant purchased it and fixed it but even then twice OP’s engineer and technician visited and tried to remove the problem but failed and defect is still there and OP admitted by their letter dated 07-10-2014 that their engineers found that it was cooling low but after considering the letter after letters or email has made by the complainant to the OP it is clear after sale complainant facing much inconvenience from the air conditioner because the air conditioner have several defects and it fails to spread cool breeze and that was also found by the engineers of the OPs but OPs did not care to repair the same or to replace the same but as there are warranty clause the replacement may be made, repairing must be done by the OP Company and in fact, no service was given by the OP to the complainant and by that way they killed time and fact remains complainant on 05-06-2012 paid s.23,800/-. Another factor is that OP has tried to convince that warranty is for three months but it is completely false and fabricated but on the other hand it is found that OPs killed time only for the purpose of covering warranty period for one year and fact remains there was defect which is evident from the opinion of the engineers of the OPs and peculiar factor is that OP’s engineer visited, investigate but did not handover any job card for that purpose and this company is well known for cheating the customer in so many manners that is proved. It is not only applicable in the air conditioner but they are in respect of selling their fame is highest in the market for cheating the customer and practically they are selling damaged article at a standard price and in need the customers are compelled to purchase considering their financial capacity and in fact, in this case considering the name of the company and their normal price complainant purchased it but ultimately deceived by the OP and no doubt it is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. OP’s engineer found several defects but from the OP’s written version it is found that OP is willing to repair it against payment of price which is against principle of law and trade and business.
Now, after observing the present complaint and written version we have gathered that the present OP Haier Company has floated their business in the market only to sell their damaged article to the customer and to procure the capital and not to give or render any service to the person who purchased such air conditioner, refrigerator or mobile etc. and in the present case it is proved that OP has no doubt deceived the complainant by selling a defective air conditioner for which the air conditioner had been failed to produce cool breeze even after installation of voltage stabilizer as advised by the OP’s company and in the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that no doubt complainant has been deceived by the OP and OP has not rendered service to the complainant and not even during warranty period and practically did not repair the same only gave some hopes and ultimately they managed to kill the time and somehow and otherwise warranty period expired but it is the tactical game on the part of the OP for which the customer(consumer) cannot be deprived and deceived by the OP Company and other.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.5,000/- against OPs and same is allowed ex parte against OP6 but without any cost.
OPs are jointly and severally directed to replace a new defect-free air conditioner by removing the defective present air conditioner from the house of the complainant by supplying a certificate and warranty card that the replaced new air conditioner is free from any technical defect and it must be done within one month from the date of this order and if the order is not complied by the OPs in that case OPs shall have to refund the entire price amount of the said air conditioner that is a sum of Rs.23,800/- within 15 days on completion of the above one month.
OPs are jointly and severally directed to comply the order as per spirit of this judgment within the stipulated time failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for disobeyance of the Forum’s order OPs shall have to pay penal interest at the rateRs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if, it is found that OPs are reluctant to comply this order in that case penal proceeding u/s.27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which they shall be further prosecuted and further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
