Haryana

Ambala

CC/85/2022

Manjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LLOYD Company - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	85 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	11.03.2022
Date of decision	:	04.03.2024

Manjeet Singh son of Sh. Darshan Singh, aged about 52 years, resident of House No.1094, Shah Chuk Mohalla, Novelty Road, Ambala City, at present resident at House No.1323/29-C, Badshahi Bagh Colony, Ambala City.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. LLOYD Company, Registered Office: 904, Surya Kiran Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized signatory.
2. Arvind Electrical & Electronics, 457, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its authorized signatory.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri C.M. Attri, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Akhil Bhasin, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    OP No.2 already ex parte vide order dated 15.07.2022.       

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i) To provide a new A.C. or to refund Rs.34,000/-, the cost of the AC.  

(ii) To pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5000/-

(iv) Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that  on 30.3.2021 the complainant purchased one split AC-LLOYD LS18B32WACR alongwith Stablizer 4 K.V for an amount of Rs.34,000/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice NO.7390 dated 30.3.2021. The said AC was manufactured by OP No.2. The said AC carried warranty of one year from the date of its purchase.  After some days from the date of purchase of the said A.C., it started giving problem i.e. water started oozing out from the front side and due to that reason the complainant started facing so many problems. The complainant contacted the OPs, number of times, either to repair the defect in the said AC or to replace it but to no avail. OP No.2 also sent its mechanic to rectify the defect in the AC but he failed to do so. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is baseless, without cause of action and not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed etc. On merits, it has been stated that  under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the liability of product manufacturer arises in case of any (a) Manufacturing defect in the product or (b) Defective design of the product or (c) There is a deviation from manufacturing specifications; or (d) the product does not conform to the express warranty; or (e) the product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any harm or any warning regarding improper or incorrect usage or (f) service provided is faulty, inadequate and deficient but in the present case, the complainant has failed to prove any of such condition in the present complaint so complaint should be dismissed out-rightly. The complainant has not presented any primary evidence such as expert opinion report to support his contentions of any defect in the impugned product. No defect can be alleged in the absence of any expert opinion report. OP No.1 has never denied service to the complainant and is always ready and willing to resolve the issue subject to warranty terms and conditions. OP No.1 has not received any call/request/complaint from the complainant on its customer care no. till date neither any complaint call number has been mentioned in the complaint by complainant. Even as per standard practice and as mentioned in the warranty manual, all complaints are to be registered on Company's toll free/customer care number or email id, however no complaint was registered in this manner by the complainant so OP No.1 has got no chance to check and inspect the AC. Customer must produce call IDs so that OP No.1 can trace the calls in its CRM record. After receipt of the present complaint, OP No.1 had also approached the customer/ complainant to take appointment to check the AC but customer did not respond and refused to give any appointment.  OP No.1 needs to check the present status of the AC in order to resolve the issue.  OP No.1 seeks leave of this Commission to check the AC and if any issue is found, OP No.1 will repair it or replace the required parts subject to warranty terms. The complainant has only approached the dealer for redressal of his grievance. Warranty is the repair of the product or replacement of its parts and does not include replacement of whole product or refund. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd. v. Dolphin International Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 has held that the onus to prove deficiency in service is on the complainant, which in the instant case the complainant has failed to prove. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.07.2022.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-9 and closed the evidence of the complainant.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Harsh Aggarwal son of P.C. Aggarwal, Senior General Manager, Legal, one of the authorized signatory for Havells India Limited as its Corporate Office QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Noida-201304 (UP) as Annexure RW-1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by selling the defective AC in question which was suffering from inherent defect and thereafter neither repairing the same nor refunding the price thereof, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice. 
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that since the complainant has failed to prove that the AC in question is suffering from manufacturing defects, as such, he is not entitled to get any relief.
9.           The moot question which falls for consideration in the case is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not? It may be stated here that the AC in question was got inspected from the expert who submitted his report dated 28.11.2023 (Marked as “A”). The said expert opined that the AC is cooling less; there is a leakage of water from the AC; and AC is giving sound while working.    
10.           Thus, from the report of the expert, it is proved that the AC in question is defective, as its cooling is low; water is leaking therefrom and is giving sound while working. There is nothing on record to prove that the said report of the expert has been challenged by the OPs, whereas, on the other hand, it has also been stated by the expert in his report that all the parties were present at the time of inspection of the said AC. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant had pressed his second prayer regarding refund of the amount paid towards the said AC alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. In this view of the matter, it is held that since it has been proved on record that the AC in question is still defective inspite of repairing the same so many times, the complainant is thus entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.32,000/-, paid to the OP No.2, as is evident from the tax invoice dated 30.03.2021, Annexure C-7, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. 
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.32,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e 30.03.2021, till its realization.    
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.  

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization.

At the same time, we direct the complainant to return the AC in question, after getting the awarded amount.

                   Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 04.03.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President