Delhi

East Delhi

CC/71/2021

ANIL KR. PANDAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G. ELE. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 71/2021

 

	Anil Kumar Pandey, R/o. 9/534, 1st floor, West Kanti Nagar Extn., Delhi-110051.	….Complainant
Versus
1.       2.	M/s LG Electronics India Ltd., Through its Manager/Director, 20-A, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.   M/s Neelkanth Electronics, Through its Proprietor, Mr. Surender Prakash Sharma, IX/2267, Main Road, Kailash Nagar, East Delhi-110031.	……OP1           ……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 03.02.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 05.07.2023

Judgment Passed on: 07.07.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Shri Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The Complainant has alleged the deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not refunding the amount of AC which complainant had purchased as the OP has sold him defective Air Conditioner.
2. Complainant in his complaint stated that he had purchased Window AC - LG JWQ18WUXA1 INV 3s on 31.05.2020 from OP2 for Rs.28000/- with warranty of one year. He was also charged Rs. 590/- by OP1 for installation of the AC. The Complainant required the said new AC to provide proper facility to his son Master Natik Pandey who was suffering from Myocloni Epilepsy.
3. Within 4 month of purchase of the said AC the Complainant made complaint to OP1 on 06.10.2020 as AC was not giving proper cooling and OP1 sent its Mechanic on 07.10.2020 who took away the AC with him for re-filing the gas and re-installed the same on 09.10.2020.
4. However on the next day i.e. 10.10.2020 the said AC did not give proper cooling and the Complainant lodged another complaint with OP1 on 13.10.2020 and the AC was further repaired and again re-installed after filling of gas. However there was no relief and on 16.10.2020 the Complainant found that the AC was still not working properly and the problem remained the same and he contacted this time OP2 and requested him to replace the said AC and OP2 referred him to Mr. K.K. Sharma (Mobile No. 7291006551) who sent one engineer on 17.10.2020 to Complainant’s house. He opened the MC Board and other parts of the AC and assembled the same again and it was found that the AC had manufacturing defect which caused mental agony to the complainant as his ailing son was suffering because of defect in the AC.   
5. The Complainant further contacted OP2 and requested him to replace the AC but it was declined. Finding no other option, the Complainant filed the present complaint and has made the following prayers:

• For refund the amount of 28,590/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety) as charged towards the cost of said A.C. and its installation;
• To pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards compensation on account of mental agony to the Complainant and suffering sustained by the ailing son of the Complainant;
• To pay litigation charges of Rs.15,000/- in the interest of justice;
• Pass such other or further order(s) as this Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Notice was issued to both the OPs.  OP1 did not appear despite of service and was proceeded ex-parte on 02.08.2022.
7. OP2 has filed its reply wherein it has stated that there is no cause of action against it being the Dealer of M/s LG Electronics Limited (OP1). As Dealer, the AC in question was sold by it to the Complainant and it had delivered the said AC in good condition. That they are only Traders and sell goods on behalf of OP1 and even the after sales service is to be provided by OP1. As such OP2 is not responsible for any manufacturing defect.
8. Complainant has not filed Rejoinder to the Reply of OP2.
9. The Complainant has filed his evidence wherein he has marked the following documents as exhibits:

• The copy of Aadhar Card of the Complainant as Exhibit  CW-1/A .
• The copy of Invoice No. NE/2020-21/201 dated 31-05-2020 issued by OP No.2 as Exhibit CW-1/B.
• The copy of Invoice No.04105 dated 02-06-2020 issued by OP No.1 as Exhibit CW-1/C .
• Copy of MRI- Brain Report of the son of deponent as Exhibit CW-1/D.
• The printout of text message dated 06-10-2020 received from the OP No.1 in respect of Complaint No. RNP201006069005 and the copy of Challan No.2041 dated 07-10-2020 issued by OP No.1 as Exhibit CW-1/E (colly).
• The printout of text messages dated 13-10-2020, 14-10-2020, 16-10-2020, 22-11-2020 and 21-12-2020 received from the OP No.1 in respect of Complaint No. RNP201013011980 and RNP201221025567 as Exhibit CW-1/F (colly)
• The status of complaint lodged with the National Consumer Helpline bearing Complaint No.2324628 as Exhibit CW-1/G.
• The printout/ hard copy of Emails exchanged between the deponent and the OP No.1 as Exhibit CW-1/H (colly).
• The Certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in support of the Emails and text messages received from OP No.1 as Exhibit CW-1/I.

10. OP2 has also filed its evidence by way of affidavit.
11. This Commission has heard the arguments of the Complainant and OP2 and perused the documents on record.

 OP1 is running ex-parte.

12. It is not in dispute that Complainant had purchased a new Window AC - LG JWQ18WUXA1 INV 3s on 31.05.2020 from OP2 for Rs.28,000/- (Exhibit CW-1/B). OP1 has also charged Rs.590/- towards installation of AC (Exhibit CW-1/C). According to the Complainant he had purchased this new AC for his son who was suffering from Myocloni Epilepsy for his comfort. However within 5 months of purchase, the AC started giving trouble and there was no effective cooling and complaint was made by the Complainant on 06.10.2020 to OP1 (manufacturer). On 07.10.2020 inspection of AC was done by the mechanic of OP1 and it was found that there was gas leakage in the AC which was repaired and gas was refilled and AC was installed back on 09.10.2020.
13. However despite of that there was no cooling effect from the AC and the Complainant had to make another complaint on 13.10.2020 to OP1 and on 15.10.2020 again gas was filled and AC was re-installed however the problem continued and on 16.10.2020 the Complainant met OP2 (Seller of AC) and made complaint to him that there was no cooling effect in the AC and requested to him to replace the AC. On 17.10.2020 a mechanic of OP2 visited and after opening MC Board and other parts made observation that there was manufacturing defect in the AC. The Complainant thereafter requested OP2 to replace the AC. However he refused to do so.
14. OP1 though is running ex-parte is the manufacturer of the AC in question and it was its primary duty to supply defect-free AC to their customers. However within 5 months of sale of said AC, the complaint of there being no effective cooling by AC was made by the Complainant two times to OP1 and OP1 sent its mechanic who repaired and refilled the gas in the AC on both occasions however the problem persisted.  Exhibit CW 1/E & CW 1/F which are the messages exchanged between the Complainant and OP1 establishes the same. Defect of gas leakage in a newly purchased AC and it not giving cooling effect and had to be repaired twice within 5 months of purchase speaks about the manufacturing defect by itself and does not warrant any expert opinion and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP1.
15. It is the primary obligation of any manufacturer and the dealer who sells product in market by publishing/making advertisements to sell defect-free product which can be enjoyed by the purchaser without any problem/hassles. In the present case the Complainant tried his best to get the AC repaired two times through OP1 (manufacturer) within warranty period however on account of the AC still remaining ineffective in cooling, the Complainant suffered with mental agony and pain.
16. The contention of OP2 that it is only a Dealer of OP1 and had sold the AC in question in good condition to the Complainant and that they have no other liability/responsibility is untenable. Being a Dealer they are showcasing the products of various manufacturers in their showroom where the consumer visits and sales person informs him about the features of the product and convinces him to buy product and in this process the product is sold and the dealer get his commission. Hence OP2 cannot absolve itself by stating that it has no liability/responsibility by shifting the entire blame on the manufacturer. Further when the Complainant approached OP2 and explained to it the problem, then OP2 sent one mechanic to the Complainant who after inspecting the AC opined that it had manufacturing defect. This is not been denied by OP2 specifically. Thus OP2 sold the AC which had inherent manufacturing defect which amounts to deficiency in service.

 

17. For the reasons stated supra, both OP1 & OP2 are liable jointly & severally for deficiency in service and this Commission orders as follows:

• OP1 & OP2 (jointly & severally) shall pay Rs.28,590/-to the Complainant with interest @7% p.a. from the 06.10.2020.
• OP1 & OP2 (jointly & severally) shall pay Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.4000/- towards legal expenses to the Complainant.
• Complainant shall return the AC in question to OP1 & OP2 jointly on receipt of the amount.

This Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which both OP1 & OP2 (jointly & severally) pay interest @9% p.a. on all the above amounts till the date of realization.

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 07.07.2023.