DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.170/2016
Sh. Dinesh Dahiya Advocate
952, Village & Post office Bijwasan
New Delhi- 110061
….Complainant
Versus
International Aircon Pvt. Ltd.
Manufacturer of Mitsubishi Heavy
Industry Air Conditioner
10179, G-1 Mall, W.E.A. Abdul Aziz Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005
Sandhu Enterprises
Basement 3, Sant Nagar,
East of Kailash, New Delhi
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.06.2016
Date of Order : 05.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
1. Complaint has been filed for seeking direction (i) to replace the defective Air Conditioner free of cost; or whole amount paid for Air Conditioner be refunded; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- as mentioned in Para 17 of the complaint (iii) to provide true specification on their web-site;(iv) to submit apology letter for making false and fake averments on web-site.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2. The Complainant purchased the Air-Conditioner (A.C) model No. SRK 20CLS against bill No. R-1-114/15-16 dated 14.06.2015 for Rs.42,500/- from OP-2 i.e. Sandhu Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as OP-2) under the bonafide impression that the specification of said A.C would meet his requirement. Copy of Bill is enclosed as Annexure-2. OP-2 is authorised dealer of M/s International Aircon Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) and is manufacturing of Mitsubishi Heavy Industry Make A.C capacity of 1.5 ton of split AC & has 50ft air flow. As per website of OP-1 and represented by OP-2, specification of said model – weight outside unit 46 Kg and inside unit-17 Kg and air flow upto 50ft. Specification chart is enclosed as Annexure -I. On the receipt of said A.C, the weight of the outside unit was found– 40 Kg against 46 Kg as shown at website of OP-1 and indoor unit weight was found 12 Kg as against 17 Kg; and airflow was noticed 25 ft as against upto 50ft contrary to the specification chart. After installation of the said A.C, the working was found poor. The complainant approached the OPs vide its complaints dated 05.10.2015, 17.10.2015, 22.02.2016 and 27.04.2016, but each and every time, they tried to convince the Complainant that A.C was working satisfactorily. The technician on the premises of various reasons stated that low cooling is responsible on account of gas leakage etc but could not resolve the problem. Theses technician actually in tete-a-tete accepted the fact that the A.C had a manufacturing defect. The Complainant again took up the matter on 27.04.2016 vide email with the request that if the said complaint is not attended to then he shall be forced to take appropriate action against OPs. The technician of OP-1 attended to complaint but same could not be solved.
3. The complainant filed complaint-cum-notice for defective piece of A.C against OPs on 15.06.2016. No solution was found for these defects as noted above in the said A.C. Hence, the complaint.
4. OPs were issued notices. Despite the service of notices, the OPs did not appear in this Commission. As such, this court proceeded exparte against OPs vide order dated 06.10.2016. Therefore OPs remained exparte and no effort was made to challenge the order dated 06.10.2016 for setting aside. As such, the OPs remained unattended and no response was available on behalf of OPs.
5. The Complainant has filed exparte evidence in affidavit. The Complainant in person was present in Commission on 17.02.2022 when arguments were heard. The Complainant made statement before the Commission that he does not wish to file written arguments. Since the Complainant was present in person, hence, his statement was accepted and allowed the conclusion of oral arguments.
6. This Commission has gone into the material placed on record. Due consideration was given to the oral arguments advanced by the Complainant. It is clear cut case of mis-representation of the facts. The web-site of OP-1 and representation made by OPs clearly led the Complainant to believe that the said model of A.C as mentioned above shall meet his requirement. On the installation of said A.C, it was found that the said model does not posses those specifications, which has been reflected in web-site. The Copy of said specification are placed alongwith complaint. As reflected above, the said A.C is found deficient in weight, air-flow etc. The technician on every visit, tried to fix the problem but of no avail as the AC in question is deficient in parameters as shown in web-site.
7. After considering the facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission is convinced that the OPs led the Complainant to believe that said piece of A.C shall meet his requirement. The same is violative of Section 2 (28) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The same provisions provides as under:-
(28) “ misleading advertisement” in relation to any product or service, means an advertisement, which-
(i) falsely describes such product or service; or
(ii) gives a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service; or
(iii) conveys an express or implied representation which, if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof, would constitute an unfair trade practice; or
(iv) deliberately conceals important information;
Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2019, further provides as under, which is also relevant in the instant case:-
(a) falsely represent that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
8. In view of the above, it is vividly established that the goods i.e. Acs are not found of particular standard quality, quantity etc. as represented by OP and the above section are applicable in the instant case.
9. The mis-representation/fake representation as noted above squarely falls under the above mentioned provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. 2019. Accordingly, OPs are held responsible jointly and severally and shall pay Rs.50,000/- including purchase cost within 02 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest @6% per annum shall be levied till realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
