BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 422 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 04.07.2022
Date of Decision : 07.07.2023.
Sandeep Kumar, aged 43 years son of Shri Kanwar Bhan, resident of village Budhabhana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Jagdambay Electro, Shop No.38, Ajay Vihar, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its proprietor.
2. Lloyd Service Centre, 15, New M.C. Market, Old Civil Hospital Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge.
3. Havells India Limited, Registered Office : 904, Surya Kiran Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi- 110001, through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
Sh. S.K. Nadha, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one Split air conditioner 1.5 ton 3 Star Inv-LS18131 AF of Llyod company from opposite party no.1 on 20.07.2018 vide invoice No. JE/18-19/145 for a sum of Rs.33,500/- and he was given 10 years warranty i.e. up to 19.07.2028 against all manufacturing defects in the air conditioner. The air conditioner is manufactured by op no.3. That in May, 2022 the air conditioner stopped cooling and therefore on 13.05.2022 he lodged a complaint with the ops on their customer care number and on 29.05.2022, the ops got replaced the compressor of the AC and charged a sum of Rs.3200/- i.e. Rs.550/- as service charges and Rs.2650/- other expenses which was paid by complainant to the ops. It is further averred that however with the replacement of the compressor, the AC did not work and same problem continued therein. On 11.06.2022, the complainant further lodged a complaint with the ops and thereafter the engineer of the ops stated that Indoor PC of the said air conditioner is defective and replaced the same, but even then the problem persisted therein. That then the engineer of the ops stated that outdoor PC is defective, which was also changed but the problem could not be resolved and AC did not give any cooling. The complaint lodged on 11.06.2022 was closed by the ops on 18.6.2022 with the remarks “Customer facing problem AC showing the P4 error and he said compressor replaced but issue not resolved.” It is further averred that when the compressor was replaced by the ops, the AC was showing the error code P4 and even after replacement of the compressor, there was same error in the AC, therefore, the ops reaffixed the indoor and outdoor PC which were earlier removed by them, but the problem in the AC is still persisting. That complainant further lodged complaints on 27.06.2022 and then also which is pending with the ops and AC is lying opened at the spot and ops are putting off the matter on the pretext that compressor of AC is required to be again replaced and that when the compressor will become available, the same will be replaced. It is further averred that it seems that earlier compressor changed by ops was not a new one and ops may have affixed some refurbished compressor, which did not work at all and now the ops are putting off the matter on false and baseless pretext and there is some manufacturing defect in the AC which cannot be removed by way of repaires. That complainant is entitled to replacement of AC with a new one or refund of its price amounting to Rs.33,500/- alongwith interest and is also entitled to refund of Rs.3200/- charged by op no.2 towards replacement of compressor. That ops have failed to replace the defective AC with a new one despite repeated requests and indulged themselves in unfair trade practice and have also committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant due to which he has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the ops for harassment etc. and is also entitled to get the rent of the window air conditioner which was got installed by him at his premises for the time being which is quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Op no.1 failed to appear despite service of notice and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ops no.2 and 3 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections regarding privity of contract and that complainant has neither adduced any primary evidence or any expert opinion to support the manufacturing defects in the AC. It is submitted that AC was purchased by complainant on 20.07.2018 whereas complainant registered first complaint on 13.05.2022 i.e. after about four years. It is crystal clear that the AC was working perfectly fine for this period and question of any manufacturing defect is ruled out. It is further submitted that answering op received last call on 27.06.2022 and on that call answering op resolved the issue of the complainant by replacing the compressor and thereafter op company did not receive any complaint from complainant. On merits, it is submitted that complainant was given 10 years warranty i.e. up to 19.07.2028 against all manufacturing defects in the said air conditioner. As per warranty scheme available online on mylloyd.com there is five years component warranty and 10 years warranty only on compressor. It is further submitted that answering op provided its services by replacing the compressor of the AC free of cost in warranty and only service charges and gas refilling charges were taken by the answering op from complainant which are payable after one year as per extended warranty terms. It is further submitted that call was registered on 11.06.2022 and 18.06.2022 and on both the calls, the answering op has not find any issue in the AC as technician of the answering op only observed voltage issue and same is not under the control of answering op, hence the calls were closed. That answering op provides warranty only for repair and replacement of the parts only and not for the whole replacement. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1 and copies of documents i.e. tax invoice Ex.C1 and messages Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Senior General Manager Legal as Ex.R1 and warranty scheme as Ex.R2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Admittedly the complainant purchased the air conditioner in question from op no.1 on 20.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.33,500/- which fact is also proved from invoice Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged defect of cooling in the air conditioner within warranty period of ten years of compressor of air conditioner. It is proved on record from the text messages Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 which are between service center and manufacturing company i.e. op no.2 and op no.3 that despite replacement of compressor, the problem of cooling in the air conditioner continued and remained as it is. It is also proved on record that despite replacements of major parts i.e. Indoor PC, Outdoor PC including compressor, the air conditioner of the complainant was not giving cooling and problem could not be resolved. Though ops no.2 and 3 have alleged that their technician only observed voltage issue and same is not under their control but ops no.2 and 3 have not placed on file any expert report in this regard to prove that there is only issue of voltage and there is no any other defect in the air conditioner. Since the major parts of the air conditioner have already been replaced but same also did not give any result, as such complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the air conditioner after proportionate deductions as complainant has used the AC for four years. In our considered opinion any direction regarding repair of air conditioner or replacement of any parts will not serve the purpose and will be a futile exercise since major parts of the air conditioner have already been replaced. As the complainant has used the air conditioner for four years, so in our considered opinion end of justice would be met if the ops no.2 and 3 are directed to make refund of lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as complainant purchased the air conditioner in question for a sum of Rs.33,500/- and has also paid amount of Rs.3200/- to the ops no.2 and 3 for replacement of compressor of the AC.
8. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the above said amount of Rs.20,000/- from ops no.2 and 3 alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops no.2 and 3 to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses within above said period. The complainant will have to hand over the air conditioner in question to the op no.2 service centre of op no.3 within time against proper receipt. The prime liability to comply with this order will be of the op no.3 being manufacturing company of the air conditioner in question. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 07.07.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
(JK)
