BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 205 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 06.09.2021
Date of Decision : 12.05.2023.
Vijay Kumar son of Shri Amar Singh, resident of Aata Chakki, Saraswati Colony Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. L.B. Electronics, Opp. Masjid, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Prop./ Owner (authorized dealer of Lloyd Air Conditioner).
2. Havells India Ltd. QRG Towers, 2D, Sector-126, Expressway, Noida – 201304 (UP) through its Authorized Persons/ Responsible Person.
3. Havells India Ltd. registered office at 904, Surya Kiran Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi- 110001 through its Authorized Person/ responsible person (manufacturer of the Lloyd Air Conditioner).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pawan Kumar Tantia, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 12.06.2021 complainant purchased an air conditioner of Lloyd company from opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.34,500/- vide bill No.2021-22/422 and same was purchased by complainant after every type of assurances given by op no.1 about its best quality and proper services. The air conditioner was purchased by complainant through Bajaj Finance. It is further averred that however, just after a week of its purchase, the air conditioner started creating problem and started giving unbearable sounds like a generator and also stopped giving cooling. On complaint to op no.1, a mechanic was sent to his house who did minor repair whereas as the air conditioner was a new one it should have been replaced but as complainant did not want to create any nuisance as such he agreed for the repair. It is further averred that after one week of repair, it again started creating the same problem and therefore complainant requested op no.1 to replace the air conditioner with new one but he refused to replace the same rather directed the complainant to lodge a complaint before the Customer Care of the company. That complainant also lodged a complaint on toll free number of company on 01.07.2021 and mechanic of ops no.2 and 3 visited the premises of complainant and thoroughly checked the air conditioner and disclosed that there is a manufacturing defect in the compressor of air conditioner, however, at that time the mechanic assured the complainant that they have got done the repair in the compressor and now it will work properly and will not create any kind of problem. The Mechanic further assured him that as complainant has lodged a complaint for the replacement of the air conditioner, so it will be replaced with fresh one soon. However, complainant faced same problem again just after one week of said repair and has made several complaints to the ops but all in vain rather they closed the complaint at their own end. It is further averred that on 04.08.2021 complainant again lodged a complaint with the ops no.2 and 3 upon which the Area Sales Manager alognwith their Engineer visited his premises and on checking they have also disclosed that there is manufacturing defect in the compressor of air conditioner and they demanded Rs.15,000/- for replacement of the same. The complainant protested for the same and requested them to change the compressor but they refused to do so. It is further averred that ultimately complainant further approached to op no.1 and requested for replacement of the air conditioner, but this time op no.1 rebuked the complainant for his regular visit and openly stated to do whatever he wants. That complainant has suffered financial loss and harassment due to act and conduct of the ops and they have caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. 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 submitting therein that there is no expert opinion with the complainant to show that the product in question has inherent defect or the fault arose due to some manufacturing defect. No manufacturing defect can be alleged in the absence of any expert opinion report. That answering ops never denied service to the complainant and are always ready and willing to resolve the issue subject to warranty conditions. It is further submitted that as per the last visit by technician of ops on 15.10.2021, there was no issue in the air conditioner and same was working perfectly OK as per its technical specifications but complainant was not satisfied and wanted complete replacement of AC. That the warranty provided by ops’ company is only for manufacturing defects and is limited to the repair or replacement of parts only. It is further submitted that when the product is working OK as per its technical specifications, the question of complete replacement or refund does not arise at all. However, still as a goodwill gesture and for customer satisfaction, op company had agreed to replace the ODU (Outdoor Unit) of the AC to which the complainant had initially agreed but later on refused for ODU replacement as he wants complete AC replacement and also refused to sign on satisfaction letter. It is further submitted that on 09.07.2021 only gas refilling was done and same is not a manufacturing defect in the AC. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, invoice Ex.C1 and warranty terms and conditions Ex.C2.
5. Ops no.2 and 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Senior General Manager Legal as Ex.R1.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this complaint, none appeared on behalf of ops no.2 and 3 and they were proceeded against exparte. However, thereafter they joined the proceedings after moving an application.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The ops no.2 and 3 except affidavit of Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, Senor General Manager Legal Ex.R1 have not placed on file any expert/ engineer’s report to prove their version that there is no manufacturing defect in the air conditioner in question which was purchased by complainant on 12.06.2021 from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.34,500/- through invoice Ex.C1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant on 12.09.2021 just within three months of purchase of air conditioner alleging inherent defects in the air conditioner just after purchase of the air conditioner. It is the specific case of the complainant that despite repairs of the air conditioner in question for two three times, the defect could not be removed and it started creating problems just after repairs and even the mechanic as well as engineer of the ops also confirmed that there is manufacturing defect in the air conditioner.
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the application of complainant for seeking expert opinion regarding condition of the air conditioner, Samsung Care Service Center was directed to inspect the air conditioner and compressor and said Samsung Care Service Centre, Sirsa in its report has submitted that there is no chances of repairing in the air conditioner as there is manufacturing defect in the air conditioner and repair, if any will be temporary and not permanent one. So, the complainant has succeeded in proving that defects in the air conditioner cannot be removed by repair. The complainant has sought refund of the amount of Rs.34,500/- from the ops on the ground that services of the ops no.2 and 3 are poor. Since the air conditioner of the complainant suffered defects within a short time period and defects could not be removed by the ops no.2 and 3 despite repairs, therefore, complainant has lost faith in the product of the ops no.2 and 3 and therefore, he does not wants replacement of the air conditioner with a new one of the same company. Therefore, to end the litigation between the parties, it will be in the fitness of things if the ops are directed to make refund of the amount of the air conditioner to the complainant because replacement of the air conditioner will not serve the purpose because complainant has lost faith in the company of ops no.2 and 3.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.34,500/- to the complainant 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 said amount of Rs.34,500/- from the ops alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment and on payment of price of the air conditioner, the ops will take back the air conditioner in question from the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. The prime liability to comply with this order will be of the ops no.2 and 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: 12.5.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
(JK)
