Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/17/219

Anni Varghese - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ideal Home Appliances - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

                               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

 

                               SRI.VIJU.V.R.                   : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.219/2017 (Filed on : 07/07/2017)

ORDER DATED: 15/06/2023

COMPLAINANT

 

Ani Varghese, Lavanya Apartment, 2F, Chuzhampala, Mukkolakkal.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 043.

                                   (Party in person)

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Managing Director, 1^st floor, Pearl Global Tower, Plot 

             No.51, Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon – 122 004, Haryana.

                                      (OP1by Adv.Jaideep.G.Nair)

2. The Branch Manager, Ideal Home Appliances, Ulloor Bridge, 

    Kesavadasapuram, Pattom.P.O. Thiruvananthapuram –   695 004. 

                            (OP2 by Adv.Gayathri.R.Krishnan)    

                                                    ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                           : MEMBER

1.         This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the case is that on 18/04/2017 the complainant purchased a Carrier Brand A/C 1 Ton from the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.32,500/- (Rupees thirty two thousand five hundred only). The A/C was brought under 8^th months finance scheme of Bajaj Finance Limited. The complainant had purchased the Carrier A/c as per the advice and recommendation of the first opposite party’s sales man. But unfortunately the A/c was not working properly and the room was having a small amount of cooling after long hours of working of the said A/c which leads to wastage of money and electricity. The complainant had informed this matter to the second opposite party. The Carrier Company had sent their technician only for installing the A/c. They had not send any technician for inspecting the A/c regarding the complaint of non - cooling. The opposite parties 1 & 2 claims that the room for which the A/c is installed is large in size and so the A/c is not giving adequate cooling. But the contentions of the opposite parties 1 & 2 are not true. As the room was previously fitted with a LG One Ton A/c which was cooling the room very well. The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

2.       The opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party has averred that the complainant had purchased a One Ton A/c for a room which is approximately 120 sq.ft in size.  A 1 Ton A/c is suitable for the room of approximately 100 sq.ft. The room for which the said A/c is installed is not only large in size but also has large sun facing glass windows owing to which the said A/c is not giving adequate cooling as desired by the complainant. The complainant had purchased and installed the A/c as per her own free will and after that she cannot held the first opposite party liable for not getting the desired cooling. The representatives of the first opposite party has informed the complainant that the A/c does not suffer from any defects. But the said A/c is not giving desired cooling owing to under tonnage of the A/c. The first opposite party has no knowledge about the performance of 1 Ton LG A/c. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the first opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs.

3.       The second opposite party has contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The second opposite party is only a dealer. It is admitted by the second opposite party that the complainant had purchased a Carrier 1 Ton A/c from them. When the complainant complained about the cooling effect of the A/c the second opposite party informed the technician of the Carrier Company and the technician visited the house of the complainant. On verification it is learned that the A/c has no problem. The problem is regarding the room. The sq.ft of the room is more than that the complainant informed to the dealer. The second opposite party has given the A/c as per the information given by the complainant regarding the room. But the second opposite party came to know about the mistake happened to the complainant regarding the sq.ft of the room only at the time of the visit to the house of the complainant. At that time the technician informed the problem to the complainant as well as to the second opposite party. Since the room sq.ft is larger the A/c purchased by the complainant cannot cool the entire room. One Ton A/c is not sufficient to cool the room of the complainant. The product has no manufacturing defect, hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs to the second opposite party.

Issues to be ascertained:

i. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties    1 & 2 ?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

5.Issues (i) & (ii):-

Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit and has produced four documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P4 series. The complainant was examined as PW1 and she was cross examined by the second opposite party. The opposite parties 1 & 2 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence before this commission. The complainant and second opposite party filed argument notes. It is admitted by the second opposite party that the complainant has purchased a Carrier one Ton Ac/ from their show room. On going through the Ext.P3 it can be seen that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are bound to give free service for one year for the product they have sold. But the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not produced any evidence before this commission that they have resolved the problem raised by the complainant. Even though the complainant has alleged that the A/c has got manufacturing defect, she has not produced any evidence to prove the same. The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 not giving service to the product they have sold to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.

               In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties     1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost  towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

                A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

                Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 15^th day of June 2023.

 

                                                                                 Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                          

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.219/2017

 

List of witness for the complainant

PW1            - Anni Varghese

 

List of Exhibits for the complainant

 

Ext.P1         - Copy of affidavit

 

Ext.P2         - Copy of Letter from Carrier Company

 

Ext.P3         - Copy of warranty card

 

Ext.P4         - Copy of bill of refrigerator

 

Ext.P4 (a)    - Copy of warranty bill

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                  PRESIDENT