Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/32/2014

P.HarikrishnaReddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.s Raj Refrigerations Rep by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

S.Sreeramulu

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :29-04-014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:20-11-2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Friday, this the 20^th day of   November, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.32/2014

P. Hari Krishna Reddy,

S/o.Kamaiah, Hindu, Agriculturist,

Aged 35 years, R/o.Mypadu Gate Centre,

D.No.28-4-263, Prasanthi Nagar, Beside BJP Office,

Nellore-2.                                                                                             ..… Complainant    

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

Raj Refrigerations, Represented by it’s Proprietor:Sri Aziz Beig, No.12, N.C.Buildings, Subedarpet, Nellore-1.                                 ..…Opposite party

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 06-11-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri S. Sreeramulu, advocate for the complainant and                                                                Sri N. Sreenivasulu Reddy,    advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This complaint  is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to  replace the defective air conditioner bearing Daikin Split 3 star model by providing a correct piece by rendering service towards the consumers within the stipulated time or to return the amount paid by the him for a sum of Rs.31,500/-  alongwith interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till its realization, Rs.10,000/- towards  mental agony and  costs of Rs.5,000/- and such other further reliefs.

 

 

2.         The brief averments of the complaint are that  the complainant  purchased  DAIKIN Split 3 Star  Air Conditioner  from the opposite party show room, who is authorized dealer  for the said air conditioner on 30-04-2013 for the valuable consideration of Rs.31,500/-  vide under bill No.49 bearing ODU Model No.0004914 and IDU Model No.0011329.  The complainant  further alleged that since date of purchase of the said air conditioner  giving some mechanical and technical problems and not working properly.  On the plea of complainant about the non-working of air conditioner, the opposite party made effected repairs on 02-10-2013 for gas problem and handover the same to the complainant.  The complainant further alleged that again the problem was arisen  and  on request  dated 06-02-2014, the opposite party made effected another service and handed over the same to the complainant.  Surprinsingly, the said air conditioner gave same problem  and faced lot of inconvenience with the defective piece and eventhough several times informed the opposite party to rectify the defects,  the opposite party did not respond properly to the complainant.  Vexed with their  attitude the complainant took the said air conditioner to the experts and on the report of the experts  found that it has got leakage problem besides the defect in the compressor which cannot be repaired except to replace with a new one.  Therefore, it is clear that the opposite party sold a defective and ineffective piece of air conditioner to the complainant and failed to rectify the mistake and also violated the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party on 25-04-2014 calling upon them to replace another piece or to refund the amount paid by the complainant within             15 days from the date of receipt of notice.  Eventhough, the duty caste upon the opposite party to render service, they failed to comply the defects and hence the  complainant is constrained to file the complaint  claiming  for damages and also to replace the defective air conditioner or to return back the amount paid of Rs.31,500/- with 24% p.a. from the date of  purchase till the date of realization.

 

3.         The opposite party resisted the complaint and filed written version by denying all the allegations made in the complaint  except that of admission that complainant purchased Daikin 1.5 ton split 3 star air conditioner on 30-04-2013 for Rs.31,500/- bearing  ODU model No.0004914 and IDU No.001329 vide bill No.49. 

 

4.         This opposite party submits that as per clause A and clause No.2 of terms and conditions, the warranty period is 12 months from the date of commission i.e.,                  30-04-2013 and additional warranty of 48 months on the compressor after expiry of initial warranty period.  As the warranty period is going to be expired by 30-04-2014, the complainant with an ulterior motive got issued registered  lawyer notice to get wrongful gain.  Further, the opposite party submitted that she is the authorized dealer  Daikin Air Conditioner India Private Limited and any defect arises, the complainant has to approach the manufacturer for replacement of air conditioner .

 

            5.         The opposite party submitted that for the 1^st time the complainant made a complaint about the non working condition of the air conditioner to the opposite party then the service personnel of the opposite party namely Rasool Basha attended the complaint on 02-10-2013  and rectified the mistake of gas leakage by filling up the gas in the house of the complainant itself.  The opposite party stated that the said  leakage might have caused due to  external meddling by monkeys or other animals creatures, cats, rats etc.,  But there was no gas problem as alleged by the complainant.  Again, the complainant made another complaint on 06-02-2014 stating that  the said air conditioner was not giving full cooling effect. Then, the service person of the opposite party namely Tharun visited the house of the complainant on the same day and cleaned the  defect of dust in the air filters.  For that no service charges were collected from the complainant.  At any time, the said air conditioner was not brought to the show room for repairs of service.  The service personnel of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant and carriedout the mentioned services.  The opposite party further contended  that the complainant  has not filed  the report of expert about the defects pointed out  by the complainant.  As such, the version of the complainant is  a concocted one.  The opposite party further contended that the air conditioner is working perfectly and the same can be checked up by appointing an advocate commissioner.  Since, there is no problem in the said air conditioner as alleged by the complainant, there is no obligation on the part of opposite party to replace the air conditioner  with a new one  and there is no manufacturing defect or any other defect in the air conditioner sold to the complainant. As such there is no deficiency in service and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

             6.        The points for determination would be :

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of  opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant in respect of repairing the defectives air conditioner?
2. To what relief?

 

            7.         In order to substantiate  the complainant averments, complainant filed evidence on affidavit  as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3.  On the other hand,   the opposite party filed chief affidavit as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 on their behalf .  Both parties filed written arguments.  Heard on both sides.

 

              8.         POINT No.1: It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased Dalkin 1.5 ton split 3 star air conditioner  from the opposite party on 30-04-2013 for Rs.31,500/- bearing ODU Model No.0004914 and IDU No.001329 vide bill No.49.    It is also admitted fact that the defects were found and attended the defects by the opposite party twice and handedover the same after rectification.

               9.          It is the allegations of the complainant since the purchase of  air conditioner it has been giving some mechanical and technical problems and consequent on that  the said air conditioner is not working properly.  When he made complaint on  02-10-2013 about some problem to the opposite party, the opposite party  attended  and rectified the  problem  stating that the it was gas problem.  It is further alleged that the said air conditioner again got same  problem  and on complaint made by the complainant, the opposite party  made another service after cleaning the air filters and  handedover the same on 06-02-2014.  Vexed with the  repairs of the air conditioner, the complainant approached  experts and the said experts stated that the defective air conditioner cannot be repaired except only solution is to replace with a new one.  The complainant alleged that the opposite party supplied defective air conditioner and failed to rectify the mistake by rendering inefficient service by violating the guidelines of warranty.  Due to the delay and defraud of the opposite party in rendering the service to the air conditioner, the complainant sustained loss with mental strain and stress besides the investment of amount.  Hence, the complaint sought for replacement or return of the amount paid by the complainant Rs.31,500/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of realisation.

 

            10.       On the other hand, the opposite party stated that in the evidence on affidavits filed by R.W.1 and R.W.2 stating that  Smt Parakkat Savithri is the proprietrix of M/s.Raj Refrigerations  and not Aziz Beig, Proprietor as alleged by the complainant and also stated that the complainant has to proceed against the manufacturer only for replacement of the air conditioner and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary party.  The opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased above said air conditioner and having some problems as narrated by the complainant.  Thereafter on the request of the complainant about the defects in the air conditioner, the opposite party sent their men and attended the complaint on 02-10-2013 and 06-02-2014 respectively and rectified the problems on the day itself  in the house of  complainant.  Since, they have attended the complaints about the gas leakage and cooling effect of the air conditioners without collecting service charges from the complainant, the opposite party no way responsible  for the  relief claimed  by the complainant and also the opposite party has not violated the terms and conditions of the warranty.  The opposite party stated that the complaint was filed by the complainant with an ulterior motive as the warranty period was going to be expired by 30-04-2014 and issued legal notice  only to get wrongful gain.  Further, the opposite parties  stated that the complainant has not filed expert report about the alleged defects to establish his case and as such no mental agony was caused or suffered by the complainant and he is not entitled  for any relief as claimed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed, with costs.

 

            11.       It is noticed from the records that though the opposite party  bound to supply the good air conditioner with working condition to the complainant at the time of  purchasing, the opposite party failed to supply the same.  It is also  reveals from the record that the opposite party  have not fulfill their part of obligation  in rectifying the defects  pointed out by the complainant. But, the opposite party stated that he has attended the defects twice i.e., 02-10-2013 and also on 06-02-2014 on the  complaint made by the complainant but she did not place any positive proof of acknowledgement of the complainant’s satisfaction report during the warranty period. No cogent proof filed by the opposite party contrary to the evidence placed by the complainant. 

 

            12.       Generally,  a common man used to purchase air conditioner and other goods from a shop by expecting the purpose  for which the goods are purchased will serve the fulfillment of their desires.  If there is any defect in the said goods, the very purpose of purchase will be defeated and the  consumer will be put to great hardship.  In a such a situation and in the instant case, the defects arose within a year from the date of purchase and  the opposite party cannot escape from its liability without rectifying the problems arose in the  air conditioner.  When once the air conditioner is received by the dealer from the manufacturing company, it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to see that  the said air conditioner is in good and proper working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant at the time of selling the said product. In the instant case, the opposite party eventhough admitted the  defects pointedout by the complainant, it failed to cure it permanently, which amounts to cause inherent manufacturing defect. Long silence and inaction on the part of the opposite party would certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Unscrupulous traders, after receiving the  price amount  should not be spared, when they failed to supply the good material to the customers.  The complainant because of inaction  on the side of opposite party confined to approach this Forum by filing  warranty card, purchase bill and also legal notice, which are marked as Exs.A1 to A3 for the purpose of  replacement of defective air conditioner or to return the amount paid by the complainant for a sum of Rs.31,500/- with 24% p.a. and also Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Thus, the complainant placed plausible evidence and the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party is proved for their gross negligence and inaction. Since, the air conditioner is giving  lot of trouble and the opposite party failed to cure it permanently, which amounts to  inherent manufacturing defect, the complainant is entitled for the relief of refund of purchase  amount with interest thereon alongwith compensation and costs.

            13.       The purpose of Consumer Protection Act is to help consumers when they suffers from deficiency in service which caused by  service providers but the service providers should not escape from its liability by throwing blame on the complainant on flimsy grounds.  Such practice should be deprecated.  In the instant case, the opposite party thrown the blame on the complainant stating that there is no manufacturing defect and the statement of complainant’s allegation is false.  Further, there is no expert evidence placed by opposite party to rebut the evidence of complainant.  Except self serving statement of opposite party there is no iota of evidence placed  in support of  its contention.  It is an important point to note that the opposite party did not issue any reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant.  Hence, even  from this angle also the contention of the opposite party is not only acceptable but also unholy contention.

 

 

            14.       Therefore considering the above said facts and circumstances, it is clearly establishing the fact of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for not  effecting the repairs to the air conditioner  purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.  Therefore, the  opposite party  is liable to return the amount of Rs.31,500/-  being cost of air conditioner to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e., 29-04-2014 to till the date of payment.  Further, with regard to the damages it is to be considered  how much compensation is entitled apart from  the payment of Rs.31,500/-  towards the purchase of the said air conditioner.  The complainant claimed for a direction to the opposite parties for payment of damages of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering and deficiency of service committed by the opposite party.   Since, the opposite party failed to comply the defects within the warranty period, the opposite party is also liable for payment of compensation alongwith costs. In view of the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant, we are of the opinion that an amount Rs.5,000/-  is a reasonable amount for damages besides the costs of Rs.3,000/-.  Therefore, the opposite party is liable to refund amount of cost of air conditioner of Rs.31,500/- with subsequent interest at 9% p.a. and Rs.5,000/- towards damages besides the costs of Rs.3,000/-.   Point No.1 is answered, accordingly.

 

            15.       POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/-  (Rupees thirty one thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e.,  29-04-2014 to till the date of payment besides to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).  The complainant is directed to handover the  defective air conditioner to the opposite party soonafter compliance of the said order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  20^th  day of  November, 2015.

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

29-06-2015

Sri P. Hari Krishna Reddy,  S/o.Kamaiah, Nellore (Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

 

R.W.1  -	20-08-2015	Sri Parakkat Savithi, W/o.Chandran, Nellore (Affidavit filed)
R.W.2  -	20-08-2015	Sri Shaik Rasool Basha, S/o.Sk.Jilani, Nellore (Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	30-04-2013	Product Warranty Card
Ex.A2  -	30-04-2013	Purchase bill for Rs.31,500/- in favour of complainant issued by the  opposite party.
Ex.A3  -	25-04-2014	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite party alongwith registered postal receipt.

 

                        

 

 

                     EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Ex.B1  -

20-09-2013

Photocopy of  Form No.3CB  issued by K. Sree Hari Reddy, Nellore-524 002.

 

 

                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                      Id-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri S. Sreeramulu, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	Sri N. Srinivauslu Reddy, Advocate, Gandhinagar, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: