DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 345/2019

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP alleging deficiency in selling a defective AC.   

1. Before coming to the facts of the present case it is necessary to mention that initially the complaint was filed against 3 OPs as mentioned in the cause title but subsequently complainant made a statement that he is not pressing relief against OP2 and OP3 and as such OP2 and OP3 were deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 06.09.2023.
2. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is inter alia stated by the complainant that she purchased one AC i.e. LG Split Air Conditioner on 06.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.41,000/-  from original OP3 (since deleted) but within a month the cooling of the AC reduced and she raised a complaint dated 05.05.2019 where after one technician came and told that the issue is w.r.t. gas which was fixed and thereafter it was working properly for about 2-3 months but again on 04.07.2019 it went out of order and complaints were made on 04.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 whereafter again the issue in the AC was fixed again on 12.09.2019, AC got the same fault and when the technician came the complainant told him to change the product as it had been repaired thrice in past 5 months but technician did not confirm anything about the replacement and thereafter he filed the present complaint on 03.10.2019 before this Commission thereby stating that his AC be replaced or upgraded with a higher model along with full warranty so as to take proper benefit of the product.  Copy of the bill for Rs.41,000/- is attached.
3. OPs were served and OP1 (The only OP now) has filed its reply taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable and it has been filed with an hidden agenda of getting undue advantage thereby asking upgraded AC and it is submitted that the complainant has enjoyed the said product in question without any defect or technical issue however to make ground for replacement with new one or upgraded higher model he has filed the present complaint which be dismissed forthwith as on every occasion whenever the complaint was made the technician attended the same and defect was removed and therefore there is no deficiency on the part of OP.  It is further submitted that in case of any defect during the warranty period, OP is supposed to repair the defect of the product with or without replacement whereas complainant was seeking for replacement which is not permissible as per warranty terms and conditions and therefore complaint is not maintainable. 
4. As far as merits are concerned, it is submitted that on each and every occasion the complaint was properly attended to and the facts were explained and even the defect was cured and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed and lastly when executive of the OP tried to visit the complainant he was turned back by the complainant saying that matter has already been filed in the Court and therefore complaint of the complainant be dismissed.
5. Complainant has not filed Rejoinder and has filed her own evidence.  Whereas OP has filed evidence of Sh. Ajayan G., AR of the OP1 thereby reiterating the facts of their respective pleadings.
6. Meanwhile OP has filed an application seeking expert opinion after 4 years and 8 months but vide detailed order the said application was rejected vide order dated 18.12.2023 on the ground of belated filing of such application.  No appeal was filed by the OP. 
7. Complainant has orally argued the matter whereas OP has filed written arguments.
8. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
9. Admittedly, the product was purchased on 03.04.2019 and as per the job card filed by OP himself the first complaint was raised on 02.05.2019, second complaint was raised on 02.07.2019,  third complaint was raised on 03.07.2019, fourth complaint was raised on 15.07.2019, fifth complaint was raised on 12.09.2019, sixth complaint was raised on 04.10.2019 and seventh complaint was raised on 16.03.2020 and it was the eighth complaint when the complainant told the technician that the matter is already in the Court and no visit is required and AC which is purchased in the summer season i.e. in April 2019 i.e. for the benefit of the family, went out of order three times in five months and although the technician visited each and every time yet the complaint was not finally resolved and ultimately the complainant had to file the present complaint case before the Commission in November 2019. No one purchases any article for the purpose of inviting troubles rather the product is purchased particularly the product like an AC in summer season to protect oneself from the atmospheric heat around for himself and his family whereas in the present case although technician visited five times but the complaint was not resolved and every time the same complaint was being made i.e. less cooling - CLCO and external electrical earthing. Why the OP or its technician were not able to fix the problem in five months w.r.t. newly purchased AC suggest by itself that the defect was such which was beyond repair even by the technician of the OP and was having an inherent and beyond repairable defect.    
10. Not only this, the OP did not file any application at the earliest possible time so that the  product be got examined through an expert rather such application was filed after about 4 years and 8 months of having filed the written statement and it is despite the fact that this objection was not even taken in the written statement that some expert be appointed for examining the condition of the product.
11. Therefore, the deficiency on the part of OP has been established and apparently not able to cure the product in 5 visits can be termed as a manufacturing defect in the product and accordingly Commission therefore hereby orders as follows.

• OP would pay Rs.41,000/- to the complainant along with an interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.  It is simultaneously ordered that the complainant would return the AC in question to the OP. 
• OP would pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/ - to the complainant. 

This order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and if not complied with then OP would pay an interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire amount 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 30.09.2024.