Delhi

North

RBT/CC/192/2022

NEERAJ DAHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. RBT/CC/192/2022

In the matter of

Sh. Neeraj Dahiya

S/o Sh. R.N. Dahiya

R/o G-18/12, First Floor                                                                           

Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi                                                    ..........Complainant

 

Vs

M/s Havells India Limited

Through its Managing Director

Registered Office At:

904, Surya Kiran Building

K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110010                                       .....Opposite party No.1

 

M/s Endovision Electronics

Through Its MD/Proprietor/Partner

At 52/30, Outer Ring Road,

Badli Delhi-110042                                                        .....Opposite party No. 2

 

M/s Cool Care Enterprises

Through its Managing Director

At: H. No.A-13, Kh. NO. 8/2, 9/1/2,

Hargobind Vihar, Sector-4,

Rohini, Delhi-110085                                                       .....Opposite party No. 3

 

ORDER

31/03/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

The present complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the DCDRC-V (North-West) and has been transferred in this Commission by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission vide order No. F/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16.04.2022.

 

The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint, are that Complainant had purchased an air conditioner manufactured by OP No.1 from its authorized distributer i.e. OP NO. 2 vide invoice No. 129/2017-18 dated 19.09.2017 for an amount of Rs.18,500/-, for use in his office in District Court, Rohini, and further spent a sum of Rs. 500/- for installation of the same.

Since the Complainant had purchased AC in September 2017, he didn’t use the same at that time and also the company didn’t provide any demonstration in September 2017. Therefore, he started using it in April 2018 and when he started using the A/C, the same was not operative. As the product was in warranty, the Complainant raised the issue with the OP No. 1 on 28.04.2018 bearing complaint No. HIL280418477350. After that, the technician of OP No.3 visited for fixing the problem of the AC but the same was not resolved and he left the office with assurance that the same will be resolved by the senior technician but thereafter nobody visited the office of Complainant.

 

Thereafter, Complainant again raised the complaint on 22.05.2018 and the technician visited again and serviced the product but the problem was not rectified and technician prepared the job No. 5624 dated 23.05.2018 and asked Complainant to put the signature but Complainant refused the same as the problem was still there. Thereafter, the technician left with the assurance that senior technician will visit for the solution but nobody visited thereafter.  The complainant raised the issue again with OP No.1 on 25.06.2018 vide  request no. HIL250618844655 and the technician visited and   repaired the A/C but still the problem was not rectified and further, he disclosed that the product is having some manufacturing fault which cannot be rectified and the product need to be replaced and conveyed the same to the office but thereafter, nobody visited again and once again complainant raised issue vide request no. HIL250618844766 but the OP No.1 did not send anyone to rectify the same and the Complainant was compelled to sit and work without A/C in his chamber during the high temperature of 44 to 45 degrees and felt insulted in front of his clients as the product never work properly. Complainant who is a lawyer, practicing in Delhi, purchased the said A/C due to its advance cooling technologies for meeting his professional and personal need but despite spending huge amount on its purchase, Complainant could not enjoyed it. It has, therefore, been prayed that the OPs be directed to:-

 

1.  Pay Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand five hundred Only) including the installation charges including future interest and legal notice charges upto 18.02.2016.
2.  pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages;
3. Award throughout cost of the complaint alongwith pleader’s fees in favour of the Complainant and against the OP; and
4. Pass any other or further relief which this Hon’ble Forum deem fit proper and expedite in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of complainant.

 

Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs- 1 & 3 only as the OP-2 was deleted from array of the parties on the request of the Complainant and in response to the Notice issued, the OPs-1 & 3 has filed reply stating that the answering OPs are obliged only to repair/replace the air conditioner purchased by the Complainant during the period of warranty. The warranty clause provides for replacement of the Air Conditioner subject to sole discretion of the company. It is admitted by the OPs that the Complainant purchased LLOYD Air Conditioner on 19.09.2017 bearing Serial No. L050121B17A01116, Model No. LW12A3F9 for an amount of Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Only). It is further admitted that the answering OP No.1 received complaint on 28.04.2018 i.e. more than 7 months after the date of purchase which itself shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the aforesaid Air Conditioner. Upon receiving the complaint on 28.04.2018, service engineer of the answering OPs visited the premises of the Complainant and on inspection of the Air Conditioner, the service engineer duly resolved the complaint to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The copy of the Job sheet dated 28.04.2018 has been filed. On 22.05.2018, the Complainant again received a complaint from the Complainant with respect to cooling and swing problem in the Air Conditioner. Upon receiving the complaint, the service engineer visited the premise, of the Complainant and inspected the Air Conditioner. Upon inspection, it was found out that there was some minor adjustments which requires to be done in the Air Conditioner and the same was immediately resolved/rectified to the complete satisfaction of the Complainant. The Complainant again received complaint on 25.06.2018 and upon receiving the complaint, the service engineer visited the premise of the Complainant. However, the Complainant was not available and despite repeated calls, the Complainant did not respond to the calls and thus, the complaint was registered by the Complainant just to harass the service engineer of the answering OPs as there was no defect in the Air Conditioner and was working in proper condition. Thereafter, the answering OPs did not receive any calls from the Complainant. The copy of the Job sheet dated 25.06.2018 has been filed.

 

It is well settled by a catena of judgments cited herein below that no direction for refund of purchase price or replacement of the product can be issued where the set is repairable:-

• (1992) CTJ 1046 (CP) (NCDRC)
• II (1997) CPJ 341
• II (1994) CPJ 517
• 2005 CTJ 632 (NC)

 

The OPs have further stated that the contents of Para 4 of the complaint under reply are incorrect and denied. It is a matter of record that the complainant had purchased the Air Conditioner in the month of September 2017, however, it is denied that the aforesaid Air Conditioner was not used by the Complainant at that time as there was no such need of that due to weather. It is further denied that the Complainant started using the aforesaid Air Conditioner in the month of April, 2018 only. The Complainant raised the issue with answering OP-1 on 28.04.2018, and after receiving the complaint from Complainant, the service engineer of the answering OPs visited the premises of the Complainant and the issue was rectified by the service engineer of the answering OPs by making some minor adjustment in the aforesaid Air Conditioner. It is denied that the problem in the Air Conditioner was not resolved and the service engineer of the answering OP left the premises of the Complainant with assurance that the same would be resolved by the senior technician but thereafter nobody visited the premises of the Complainant. The contents of Para 5 of the complaint under reply are incorrect and denied. The Complainant made a complaint on 22.05.2018 and upon receiving the complaint the service engineer of the answering OPs visited the premises of the Complainant and upon inspection it was found out that there was some cooling and swing problem in the aforesaid Air Conditioner. The service engineer rectified the defect to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Therefore, it is denied that the problem was not rectified and the service engineer prepared the job card as service request No. 5624 dated 23.05.2018. It is submitted that the Complainant did not sign the job sheet despite the defect in the Air Conditioner was rectified and it was done only by him to harass the service engineer of the answering OPs. It is denied that even after rectification of the defects in the Air Conditioner, the problem still persists. It is further denied that the service engineer left the spot with the assurance that senior technician will visit for solution.

 

The contents of Para 6 of the complaint under reply are incorrect and denied. The answering OPs received a complaint from the Complainant and upon receipt of the complaint, service engineer visited the premises of the Complainant, however, the Complainant was not present at the premises and despite repeated calls, the Complainant did not respond to the calls and thus the complaint was registered as a waste call. The complaint was registered by the Complainant just to harass the service engineer of the answering OPs as there was no defect in the Air Conditioner. Thereafter, the answering OPs did not receive any calls from the Complainant. Therefore, it is denied that any repair in the Air Conditioner was done by the service engineer as the Complainant was not present at the premise and therefore, there arises no question of disclosing by the service engineer to the complainant that the product is having some manufacturing fault which cannot be rectified and the same needs to be replaced as no services was carried out by the service engineer of the answering OPs. It is further denied that the service engineer communicated about the replacement to the office of answering OPs and nobody visited the Complainant. It is further denied that answering OP-1 sent nobody to resolve the request No. HIL250618844766. It is submitted that the there was no defect in the Air Conditioner and therefore, no service was provided to the complainant.

 

The complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence submitted by both the parties and it has been observed that:-

 

1. The fact that the Complainant’s raised the issue of faults in AC with OP first time on 28-04-2018 is admitted fact and is not in dispute.
2. The Complainant had purchased AC in September 2017 but he didn’t use the same at that time due to weather conditions and the OP also didn’t provide any demonstration in September 2017. The Complainant started using the aforesaid Air Conditioner in the month of April, 2018 only and noticed faults in AC. Though the OP has denied that the Complainant started using the aforesaid Air Conditioner in the month of April, 2018 only but OP could not substantiate its stand with evidence of any demonstration and installation done by its technicians before April, 2018.
3. The “LLOYD Customer Relationship Management” record sheets dated 28.04.2018 and 25.06.2018, filed by the OP, reveal that the complaints of faults in the Air Conditioner were made 5-6 times within warranty period and the technician deployed by the OP have also repaired the AC and also charged the gas. This proves that the AC in question was having defects within the period of warranty of one year from the date of its purchase i.e. 19.09.2017. Besides, in the above mentioned, “LLOYD Customer Relationship Management” record sheets the customer rating has also been mentioned as “NOT SATISFIED” which also proves that the OP was aware of the Consumer/ Complainant’s dissatisfaction on the removal of defects in the Air Conditioner.
4. The warranty clause provides for replacement of the Air Conditioner subject to sole discretion of the company, which has not been exercised by the OP even after noticing the faults in the AC during warranty period.
5. Neither Complainant nor any of the OPs have demanded for laboratory examination of the AC during proceedings.

 

               In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP (M/s. Havells India Limited) in terms of the deficiency which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s. Havells India Limited)) to replace the AC with fresh warranty within 30 days of this order. In case the OP opts to refund the amount instead of replacing the AC, Rs.18500/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred only) shall be refunded within thirty (30) days with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 11-09-2018 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment. The complainant shall return the defective AC to the OP on replacement of AC or receipt of amount of refund with interest.  Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

 

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

Sd/-                                                                                                   Sd/-

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                                                     (Ashwani Kumar Mehta)

Member                                                                             Member

                                         

                 Sd/-

   (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                 President