DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.98/20
Mr. Prasouk Jain
S/o Mr. Sumati Jain
R/o F-4, Sector 40
Noida, UP-201301. .…Complainant
VERSUS
L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors
A Wing, Third Floor D-3, District Centre
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
LG Electronics India Ltd.
Through its Directors
20-A, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar
New Delhi-110001. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution: 14.08.2020
Date of Order : 22.05.2023
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava,
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking replacement of AC alternatively sum of Rs.48,845/- along with compound interest of 24% per annum from the date of deposit of funds. The complainant has also been seeking one year additional warranty if a repair is carried out on the product and compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs towards mental harassment and agony and Rs.55,000/- as legal cost.
- It is the case of the complainant that on 20.06.2018 the complainant purchased products of the OP vide online platform of Paytm www.paytm.com by paying a total amount of Rs.48,845/- for his personal use.
- It is stated that the AC was installed at the residence of the complainant in Noida but since the very beginning the product did not provide cooling in the room which was installed and therefore the complainant raised a complaint with the OP on 06.07.2018.
- One technician visited the house of the complainant and informed him that the requisite cooling could not happen because gas in the concerned product had leaked. It was assured to the complainant that the rectification has been done on the product and it will provide appropriate cooling once it is used regularly.
- It is stated by the complainant that on continuous use of the product for numerous days on low temperatures, it was able to cool the room for the next two months but thereafter it was unable to provide requisite cooling.
- In September 2018, the complainant again complained regarding the defect in the product and a senior technician who checked the product earlier informed the complainant that wrong pipe had been installed since the existing pipe was meant for regular split AC and not for AC with inverter technology. It is stated by the complainant that he is suffering because of the negligent work of the OP since they are responsible for fitting/installing the said AC.
- It is stated by the complainant that in February-March 2019, the pipe of the concerned product was changed as per the requirements and suggestion of the senior technician of the OP.
- It is stated that after a few weeks of the changing of the pipe, the AC again failed to function properly when there was an increase in temperature in April and the complainant again made a complaint on 10.05.2019 after which a technician rectified the dry SVC.
- It is stated by the complainant that the issue related to cooling was further raised on 15.06.2019 and this time the old door motor of the concerned product was changed in order to rectify the manufacturing defect. This issue was again raised on 15.07.2019 and a technician visited the house of the complainant and he informed the complainant that there is gas leakage and it would cost Rs.3,000/- for refilling and that the coil of the AC was damaged and being out of warranty, would require Rs.10,000/- for replacement.
- The complainant was shocked to know about the cost of repair of the AC and informed the OP that these issues were manufacturing defect and ought to be rectified free of cost by the OP. The complainant has annexed email dated 24.10.2019 as Annexure C-4 (colly). It is stated by the complainant that an email was sent by him on 30.10.2019 in furtherance of the complaint dated 24.10.2019 assuring that services would be provided within 24 hours. But service was not provided and vide email dated 31.10.2019 the OP’s service centre provided the complainant with the contact details of customer relationship Officer. The same is annexed as Annexure C-7 (colly).
- It is the case of the complainant that he has been sold a defective AC as the product only works for a few days and thereafter it is stops working which is a proof that it is suffering from manufacturing defect.
- It is also the case of the complainant that he has made umpteen efforts to obtain the service record of the concerned AC however, no records have been made available which depicts deficiency in service on behalf of the OP.
- OPs-1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte on 25.07.2022 thereafter the complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as well as his written submissions. The complainant has placed on record the tax invoice showing a payment of Rs.48,845/- being made to OP-2 for purchase of split AC of OP-1. It is seen that no complaint has been filed on record by the complainant which was made to the OP through what’sapp chat referred to in Annexure C-3 wherein a complaint number has been provided as RNP190715032259 dated 15.07.2019.
- The complainant has written in his legal notice that multiple complaints were lodged, many technicians one after the other had visited and that various parts of the AC were changed like SVC Motor, technical parts and multiple times gas filling. The complainant has also stated that this complaint is an example of res ipsa locuqitur – thing speaks for itself and that the very fact that the concerned product was repaired thrice within the year of purchase and the technicians could not diagnose the exact problem is indicative of the fact that the product suffers from manufacturing defect from the beginning.
- It is also stated by the complainant that non-delivery of required service, records of the concerned AC amounts to negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Complainant has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission passed in the case of Tata Vs. Rajesh Tyagi (2014)CPJ 132 (NC) wherein it was held “that it is the right of the consumer to be provided a product which is completely free from any defect. the complainant has also placed reliance on another judgment of the NCDRC John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narayan Patel 2015, SCC online NCDRC 4460.
- The allegations of the complainant remain unrebutted as despite due service, the OP has not in appearance. This Commission is of the view that the OP has been deficient in their services by providing an AC to the complainant which could not function properly even in the first year of purchase. Therefore, the OP is directed to refund sum of Rs.48,845/- and pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment. Rest of the prayer of the complainant is rejected. The sum of Rs. 48,845/- is liable to be paid by the OP to the complainant within three months from the date of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 5% p.a after three months from the date of the passing of the order till realization. The complainant on receipt of the money, return the said AC for which the complaint has been filed, to the OP.
Order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
