BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 446 of 2023.
Date of Institution : 30.10.2023
Date of Decision : 01.08.2024.
Mohit Bansal, aged 37 years son of Shri Pawan Bansal, C/o Prem Medical Agency, Near Surya Hotel, Begu Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. L.B. Electronics, Opp. Masjid, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
2. Havells India Ltd., QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Expressway, NOIDA-201 304 (UP), through its authorized person.
3. Lloyd Service Centre, Gali No.1, Begu Road, Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Dinesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite parties no.1 and 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 19.05.2023 complainant purchased a brand new air conditioner of Lloyd company for a sum of Rs.31,500/- vide invoice No. 2023-24/447 from op no.1 with warranty of five years against all manufacturing defects. The said air conditioner is manufactured by op no.2 and he got installed the same at its premises through mechanics of op no.1. That after few days of its use, the complainant noticed that air conditioner is not giving proper cooling and on complaint, the ops got checked the air conditioner and made some adjustment and assured that now same would work properly but same did not work properly. Since thereafter complainant has lodged complaints with ops on five six occasions and on every occasion, the engineer of op no.3 made adjustments but even then same did not work and now air conditioner is in non functional condition and he is unable to make use of the same and to enjoy its benefits in the peak summer season. It is further averred that air conditioner has a manufacturing defect and same requires its replacement or complainant is entitled to refund its price alongwith installation charges alongwith interest thereon @12% per annum from the date of purchase and the ops by their such act and conduct have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment to him as they have not paid any heed to the requests of complainant as well as to the legal notice dated 17.08.2023. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.2 appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complainant has not presented any primary evidence such as an expert opinion report or technical report to support his contentions of any manufacturing defect in the impugned product. No defect can be alleged in the absence of any expert opinion report or technical report and that answering op provides one year standard warranty for the unit in question. As per warranty scheme applicable on this date of purchase, there is additional four years component warranty and compressor warranty also on this AC and said warranty is subject to some terms and conditions. On merits, it is submitted that the unit in question has been duly checked by answering op on each and every occasion and no defect was found. The complainant approached to answering company on 25.06.2023 and 27.06.2023 and reported AC tripping issue. The answering op’s company duly attended the call and unit was checked by the technician of answering op, but no defect was found and the tripping of the unit was found due to voltage fluctuation of electricity supply at the premises of complainant. The technician duly guided that there is no defect and tripping of unit is only due to voltage fluctuation. The answering op recommends installing of a stabilizer to control the voltage issue (also clearly mentioned in the user manual) however complainant has already installed a stabilizer and for complainant’s satisfaction the stabilizer was also changed once but even then the AC was not showing the required voltage as per norms i.e. 230V rather the voltage was coming around 170V. It is further submitted that after that complainant again approached to the answering op on 19.07.2023 and this time reported denting issue in outdoor unit. The answering op has no role in sale purchase transactions and therefore the issue was resolved by selling dealer by replacing the ODU and the said call was closed. That thereafter complainant again approached to the answering op on 21.08.2023 and this time reported no cooling issue. Again the service technician visited and checked the unit, but the unit was found working fine as per standards and there was no defect found in the AC unit rather the issue was due to voltage fluctuation at complainant’s place. The voltage issue is not within the domain of answering op and is excluded from warranty which the customer must get it checked from electricity board at his end. The complainant shared the OTP and the call got closed successfully. Moreover, cooling is a very subjective issue and depends on various factors like AC tonnage capacity, room size, location of room, AC, outside temperature etc. Cooling needs to be checked on basis of technical parameters. As long as AC is working fine as per its technical parameters it can be aid that it is cooling fine as per standards. Thereafter, no calls/ service requests were lodged by the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Ops no.1 and 3 did not appear despite delivery of notices sent through registered covers and as none appeared on behalf of ops no.1 and 3, as such they were proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of emails Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.
6. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Senior General Manager as Ex. RW2/A and copies of documents Ex. R2/1 and Ex. R2/2.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. From the copy of invoice placed on file (though not exhibited), it is evident that on 19.05.2023 complainant purchased the air conditioner of Lloyd company from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.31,500/-. The complainant alleges defect of no cooling in the air conditioner within few days of purchase of air conditioner and according to complainant said problem has not been solved by any of the ops despite some adjustments made by engineer of op no.3. Though op no.2 has taken the plea that air conditioner is not having any defect and tripping of unit is only due to voltage fluctuation which needs proper stabilizer. However, we are not convinced with the said plea of op no.2 because op no.2 has also admitted that complainant has already got installed a stabilizer but still the air conditioner is not working properly. It is not believable that air conditioner is not working properly only due to non installation of a proper stabilizer because it is not possible that a person who will spend such huge amount for installation of air conditioner will not spend some more amount for installation of a proper stabilizer for getting proper cooling. It cannot be said there is always fluctuation of voltage/ electricity supply at the house of complainant. The op no.2 has also admitted that op no.1 has also changed outdoor unit of the air conditioner. So, it appears that there is manufacturing defect in the air conditioner due to which same is not working properly and not giving cooling and as such op no.2 is liable to either replace the air conditioner or to make refund of the price of the air conditioner as it suffered defects just after few days of its purchase and within warranty period.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 either to replace the air conditioner of complainant with a new one of same price, make and model or to make refund of the price amount of Rs.31,500/- of the air conditioner within a period of 45 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.31,500/- from op no.2 alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct op no.2 to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to op no.1. The op no.2 will take back the defective air conditioner from the complainant through op no.1 or through op no.3 against receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 01.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
