BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.291 of 2019.
Date of institution: 06.09.2019.
Date of decision:25.02.2022.
Gourav Kumar S/o Sh. Roshan Lal r/o Siwan Road, Patti Afgan, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Havells India Ltd. (Head Office), 904, Suriya Kiran Building, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 (India) through Concerned Authorized Person.
- Chaudhary Electronics, Authorized Dealer, Shop No.5, Koel Complex Market, Kaithal through its Prop./Authorized Person.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.L.Gulati, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. Akhil Bhasin, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.
Respondent No.2 exparte.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Gourav Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased the 1.5 ton Split AC from the respondent No.2 vide invoice No.663 dt. 24.07.2017 against the one year warranty for relay, thermostat, PDP cabinet, gas and service and 5+1 years compressor warranty. The case of complainant is that from the very beginning, the AC in question started giving trouble and it had very poor cooling effect and further the compressor of AC used to turn off erratically despite full electricity supply and voltage. The complainant contacted the respondent No.2 and brought the fact of non-working of AC to his notice in the month of August, 2017 and the mechanic of respondent No.2 checked the AC and stated that the AC is having manufacturing defect. The complainant made several requests to the respondents to repair or replace the said AC with the new one but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondent No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 05.11.2019 of this commission. Respondent No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant had purchased the product on 24th July, 2017 from the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the A.C. did not have any inherent manufacturing defect. The product was working fine and to the satisfaction of the complainant from the starting. In other words, the complainant had used the said A.C. for continuous 9 months and thereafter, too as the first complaint call was received on 27.04.2018 against which only servicing was done. Therefore, the question of any manufacturing defect in the AC does not arise. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Roma Arora, working as Joint General Manager, Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondent No.1.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. S.L.Gulati, Adv. for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased the 1.5 ton Split AC from the respondent No.2 vide invoice No.663 dt. 24.07.2017 for a sum of Rs.31,900/- (Annexure-C1). It has been further argued that the Lloyd Company is manufacturer of AC in question and has been taken over by the Havells and the respondent No.2 being authorized dealer of respondent No.1, assured that AC in question is of superior quality, free from any defect and gave one year warranty for relay, thermostat, PDP cabinet, gas and service and 5+1 years compressor warranty. It has been further argued that from the very beginning, the AC in question started giving trouble and it had very poor cooling effect and further the compressor of AC used to turn off erratically despite full electricity supply and voltage but the respondents failed to redress the problem of complainant and in the meantime winter season arrived. It has been further argued that again in the month of April, 2018 the defect in AC continued and complainant contacted the respondents on several occasions i.e. HIl300418489874-30.04.2018, HIL180518604668-18.05.2018,HIL050718895656-05.07.2018,HIL15
08181061085-15.08.2018, HIL2008181083886-20.08.2018 and when the service person visited and checked the AC and assured that the defect has been rectified and even charged a sum of Rs.5000/- on one pretext or the other but the problem persisted and ultimately service persons showed their inability to rectify the defect from the AC.
It has been further argued by Sh. S.L.Gulati, Adv. for the complainant that the said AC was not giving any cooling in the month of August, 2017 while it was purchased on 24.07.2017 i.e. 7 days prior. Meaning thereby, within seven days, the said AC stopped cooling. Hence, it was complained to authorized dealer of respondents i.e. Chaudhary Electronics-respondent No.2. It has been further argued that in the month of April, 2018 the AC was examined by the worker of respondent company 6 times but AC could not give required cooling for which AC was purchased. Hence, in the year 2019, complainant purchased another new window AC to save from scorching heat as the earlier AC which was purchased from respondent No.2 was not rectified by respondent No.2. Neither it was repaired nor it was replaced by respondent No.2.
7. Since the cooling kit of AC is defective. Hence, respondents jointly and severally are directed to replace the AC with the new one within two months from today or in alternative, respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.31,900/-, the price value of AC to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of purchase i.e. 24.07.2017. In default, the amount shall carry penal interest of 9% p.a.
Sh. Akhil Bhasin, Adv. for the respondent No.1 stated that the levying of interest be directed from the date of complaint. He has further stated that the AC does not cover within the terms and conditions of 5 years warranty. But the arguments of counsel for respondent No.1 does not carry much weight. Hence, it is not sustainable.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with cost. Cost is assessed as Rs.5500/- which will be paid by the respondents to the complainant. A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.: 25.02.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
