SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,seeking  direction against  OPs to replace the Air conditioner and to install  another LG air conditioner free  from defects. The alternate  OPs are directed to pay Rs.28,700/-  towards the price of  air conditioner and  also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental  agony.

 Complaint in brief :-

    On 18/1/2023, complainant  has purchased a LG Air conditioner from 3^rd OP worth Rs.28,700/- along  with stabilizer worth Rs.1950/- and AC stand for Rs.800/-.  On 19/1/2023, 3^rd OP delivered the items  and  the complainant paid installation charges of Rs.1450/- to the technician  of 2^nd OP who is the authorized  dealer of  OPs 1&3,  issued warranty card.  But to the surprise of  complainant there was no cooling effect found and this was intimated to 3^rd OP and the technician of 3^rd OP  came 6 times in order to clear AC, to fill gas etc.  All effort made by the technician went in vein.  At last complainant registered   complaint and  no effective measures taken to rectify the  defect and thereby complainant sustained hardship and sufferings.  Hence the complaint.

         After filing the complaint, commission sent notice to all OPs, the notice was deemed as duly served OPs.  But the OPs are not appeared before the commission and  not  filed any version . Ultimately the commission had to  hold that the OPs have no version  as such in this case  came to be proceed against the OPs are set exparte.

         Even though, the OPs have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  OPs.  Hence the  complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the  complainant  has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 2 documents  marked as Exts.A1 and  A2. Ext.A1 is the  tax invoice issued by 3^rd OP dtd.18/1/2023, and Ext.A2 is the warranty terms and conditions . The complainant was examined as PW1, so the OPs are remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

           Let us have a clear glance into the evidences before the commission  to answer whether there is any deficiency in service as prayed.  As the OPs  notice were duly served and set exparte and no evidence from the side of   any of the OPs to contend the averment of complainant.  On the perusal of Ext.A1 the  product was purchased on 18/1/2023 and delivered on 19/1/2023 and the  AC  he purchased  Rs.28,700/- goes  in tune  with the complaint.  Ext.A2 which is the warranty card.  Specifically stated that the product has one year warranty on all parts from the date of purchase  9 year warranty for compressor and  additional 4 year warranty  for dual split model.  However, it is apparent that the product in issue is under the warranty as purchase date was 18/1/2023 and the date of filing  the complaint before the commission is on 3/10/2023.  Even though there is no direct documentary evidence produced by complainant to show that the product in issue has the specific defect or any job sheets   from the side of technician, it is clear  from  complaint  , affidavit and Exts.A1&A2  documents that the product in issue is under warranty period.  The OPs got fair  enough chance to defend, choose to be exparte.  In the present  scenario, the commission came into a conclusion on the basis  presumption that the  product in issue  sustained defect and the complainant  faced deficiency in service from all OPs as the defect was not cured  even if the product in – issue is under the warranty period and thereby eligible to get compensation also.

       In the result complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties  are directed either  to cure the defect of Air conditioner of free of cost or  to pay  Rs.28700/- towards the purchase price of Air conditioner and also pay Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default  of rectifying the defect of free of cost, opposite parties are severally and jointly liable to pay the purchase price of  Air conditioner ie Rs.28,700/- to the complainant and is at liberty  to take back the Air conditioner from  the complainant after the payment.  Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-  Tax invoice

A2- Warranty terms and conditions

PW1-Mohammed Niyas- complainant

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR