CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/536/17

          Date of Institution:-    23.10.2017

          Order Reserved on:- 01.05.2024

          Date of Decision:-      08.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Savitri Devi,

R/o RZ F-269, Street No.7,

Near DDA Park, Raj Nagar, Part-II,

Palam Colony, New Delhi - 110077

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Havells India Limited

QRG Tower, Noida-Greater Noida Noida Expressway

Sector-126, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201303, India

2. Vijay Sales Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

V Mall, Third Floor, Near Thakur Complex, Western Express Highway,Kandivali (East),

Mumbai, MH – 400101

3. Vijay Sales Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Branch Office)

E-117, Palam Extension, Sector-7,

Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075

4. Galaxy Cool Point

G-8, Vardman Grand Market, Sector-3,

Dwarka, New Delhi – 110079.

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatOP-1 is the manufacturer of the AC. OP-3 is the branch office of OP-2. OP-4 is the authorized service center of OP-1. OP-1 is carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing and service of domestic home appliances. She has purchased window AC of make Lloyd vide invoice dated 05.07.2012 from OP-3 with one year warranty for the AC and five year warranty for the compressor. On 25.06.2017, AC went out of order qua which complaints were lodged and two representatives namely Sidharth and Rakesh of OP-4 visited her house on 27.06.2017 and inspected the AC. The job card no.669462 or 260617 against the complaint dated 26.06.2017 was issued and charged Rs.350/- for visit. The compressor was found out of order and assured to replace the same. The complaints and email were written to the OPs. On 01.07.2017, separate compliant was lodged on the website of the LLoyd upon which two representatives from OP-4 visited her house and again assured after checking the AC that compressor will be replaced as compressor is under warranty. There is no result despite her several complaints. The legal notice was sent to the OPs but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
2. OP-3 and 4 did not appear despite service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 20.11.2017.
3. The order sheet dated 24.05.2018 shows that Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and 4 submitted that OP-2 and 3 are the same with two different addresses. He has also representing OP-4 and filed common reply of OP-1 and 4.
4. OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that OP-3 is a dealer. The complainant has pressurizedOP-2 to replace the AC. It was informed to complainant that guaranty has expired.
5. The OP-1 and 4 have filed the joint reply with the averments that complainant has concealed the material facts from the Commission.The purchase of AC is admitted. The bill does not show extended warranty. The OP is ready to replace the compressor under warranty and condensor coil on chargeable basis. The AC went out of order on 25.06.2017. It is denied that two representatives of OP-4 visited the house of the complainant. The representative of OP-4 inspected the machine and charged Rs.350/- as visitation charges. The machine was found out of order.The compressor was not working. The engineer has revisited the house of the complainant and found that defects in the AC cannot be rectified as there was leakage in the condensor coil. The engineer told that AC will be taken to the service center to rectify the defects. The checking of AC at service station shows that condensor coil was badly damaged which needs to be replaced against charges and accordingly informed the complainant. The complainant agreed and accordingly condensor coil was changed. The complainant visited the office of OP-4 and refuses to pay the charges and even called the Police. The fact was narrated to the Police. The Police left the premises as dispute was found to be Civil in nature. The allegations are false and frivolous.
6. The complainant has filed the rejoinder to the written statements of OPs wherein she has denied the averment of written statements and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
7. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
8. The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents as mark CW1/1-1/6.
9. The OP-1 and 4have filed the affidavit of Sh. S R Arora and Sh. Harsh Agarwal, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statementsand placed reliance on the documents.
10. TheOP-2 and 3have filed the affidavit of Sh. Sonu Kumar Singh, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents.
11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the OP as no one can turn up on behalf of the complainant to address the arguments.
12. The OP-3 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte. The reply on behalf of OP-4 will not be considered as ex-parte order was not set aside.
13. The OP-3 and 4 were ex-parte so evidence on behalf of OP-3 and 4 will not be considered.
14. The material on the record shows that purchase of AC on 05.07.2012 by the complainant is not in dispute. The AC is manufactured by OP-1 being sold by OP-2 and 3. OP-4 is the authorized service station of OP-1.
15. The OPs have not disputed that complainant has lodged the complaint dated 25.06.2017 that AC has gone out of order upon which representative of OP-4 has visited the premises of complainant and found that fault in the compressor. The report dated 27.06.2017 was issued. The visitation charges of Rs.350/- were paid by the complainant.
16. The reply of OP-1 shows that AC was taken to the workshop where it was found that condensor coil has been damaged which is not under warranty and repair is chargeable.
17. The AC has been purchased on 05.07.2012. The warranty on the compressor is of 5 years. OP-1 is manufacturer of the AC in question. The OP-1 should have led the evidence that warranty on the compressor was not of 5 years. Mere bald assertion in the reply is not enough without any documentary evidence. The OP-1 could havefiled the brochure to show the period of warranty. The best possible evidence is withheld by the OP-1 meaning thereby that warranty on the compressor is of 5 years.
18. The complainant has lodged the complaint on 26.06.2017 regarding the fault in the AC and this fact is admitted by the OP-1. The representative of OP-4 visited the premises and found fault in the compressor and report to this effect was issued.
19. The reply of OP-1 shows that AC was taken to the workshop and condensor coil was found damaged.
20. The question is whether condensor coil is covered under thewarranty of compressor.The warranty on the compressor includes condensor as well as connecting tube. The coverage of warranty of the compressor includes free labour charges for repair or replacement. The condensor coil is part of compressor. The complaint has been made by the complainant within 5 years from the date of purchase of the AC. The warranty of the compressor is of 5 years. The OPs should have replaced the condensor coil without any charges. The demand of repair charges from the complainant for the replacement of condensor coil under warrantytantamounts not only in deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. There is deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
21. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OPs shall not charge any amount for repairs of condenser coil. The complainant is entitled forRs.25,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.

• Announced in the open court on 08.05.2024.