DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt Vidya A, Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 28/09/2020
CC/115/2020
Manikandan.K,
S/o Krishnan,
‘Sivadasam’ Panayil Veedu,
Nallamandanchalla, Vilayodi P.O,
Palakkad – 678 013. - Complainant
(By Adv. Viju.K.Raphel, Adv.Siby.P.Jose)
V/s
1. MIRC Electronics Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Onida House, G-1, MIDC,
Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East)
Mumbai – 400 093.
(By Adv.Lakshmi Priya.P)
2. Bismi Connect(P) Ltd., - Opposite parties
(Rep. by its Managing Director)
J.P’s Kairali Arcade,
21/80-10, Near Stadium Bust Stand,
Coimbatore Road,
Palakkad – 678 001.
(By Adv.T.J.Lakshmanan)
3. Onida Service Center,
14/464(4),
Supreme Towers,
Kunnathur Medu P.O,
Palakkad – 678 013
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
Prepared by Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased an inverter split Air conditioner of model BC 16725 ONIDA AC IV IA123CTL 1.OT 3S SN from the show room of 2nd opposite party on 22/01/2019 for an amount of Rs.29,000/-. 1st OP is the manufacturer and 3rd OP is the authorised service centre of OP1 in Palakkad. He purchased the product believing the representations made by the 1st and 2nd Opposite parties through various electronic and other media and because of the assurance of the staff of 2nd OP about the quality and durability of the product and also the after sale service they offer. They also offered 60 months warranty for the product from manufacturing defects.
The Air conditioner was delivered to the complainant’s house on 24/01/2019 and fitted by the technicians of 1st opposite party. At that time itself, water came out of the indoor unit of the Air conditioner and the technician asked the complainant to register a complaint with 3rd OP. As per that he registered a complaint and after one week, the technicians of 3rd opposite party attended the complaint and rectified it.
After the 2nd free service in June 2019, there was no cooling at all from the Air conditioner when it is switched on. Immediately he lodged a complaint with the 3rd opposite party and the technicians after inspection opined that the gas which is filled in the Air conditioner is not found and they have to refill it. They refilled the gas in December 2019; but within a week, the functioning of Air conditioner came to a stand still for want of cooling and again complaints were registered with the opposite parties.
The opposite parties did not rectify the defects and the complainant and his family suffered a lot because of the non-functioning of the Air conditioner during the summer period.
The complainant caused to issue Lawyer notice to all the opposite parties; but they did not even respond to that.
There is manufacturing defect in the Air conditioner and the act of the opposite parties in not rectifying the defects or replacing it, violating warranty conditions amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. So he approached this Commission for directing the opposite parties.
- To refund the price of the Air Conditioner with interest or in the alternative to replace the Air conditioner with a new one of similar description with further warranty for 60 months.
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant and to pay the cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. OP1 and OP2 appeared and filed version. First notice issued to OP3 returned ‘Left’. 2nd notice issued in the fresh address returned ‘Unclaimed’. So they were set ex-parte.
3. 1st OP in their version admitted that the complainant purchased ONIDA AC INV from the showroom of 2nd opposite party on 22/01/2019; but there was no inducement on the part of this opposite party to buy the same. They denied the rest of the allegations in the complaint.
According to the warranty terms offered by 1st OP, the product warranty is only for a year and the compressor warranty is for 60 months from the date of invoice provided in the warranty registration card. The complainant never registered a complaint with call centre number provided by them and they were not informed about the defect at the relevant time. The warranty terms and conditions expired after one year of the purchase ie., on 22/01/2020 and the complaint is filed after the expiry of the warranty period. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. 2nd OP in their version contended that the complainant is having full knowledge about the performance, quality and after sale service of the product provided by the manufacturer. He visited the showroom of 2nd OP and particularly demanded this brand od Air conditioner. When the complainant informed them about the cooling issue, they immediately advised the complainant to approach 3rd OP who is the authorised service centre of 1st opposite party.
After sale, the service of the product is the duty of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. This OP is only a dealer and never assured any warranty or after sale service.
Complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product and if there is any manufacturing defect, it is the duty of the 1st opposite party to cure it.
The 2nd OP advised the complainant to take up his grievance with 1st and 3rd Opposite parties and helped the complainant to register a complaint with them. There is no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
5. From the pleadings of parties, the following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the Air conditioner purchased by the complainant suffers from any manufacturing defect ?
- Whether there is any Deficiency in Service or Unfair Trade Practice on the part of opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
- Reliefs, if any, as cost & compensation.
6. Complainant filed an application IA 98/22 for appointment of an expert Commissioner to inspect the Air conditioner and it was allowed and the Commissioner after inspection filed report which is marked as Ext.C1. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1-A5 marked. Marking of Ext.C1 is objected to on the ground that it is to be marked only through the Expert Commissioner. 1st OP filed proof affidavit without any documents OP1 filed notes of argument and the complainant was heard.
7. Point No.1
Complainant purchased an inverter split Air conditioner of model BC 16725 ONIDA AC INV IA 123CTL. 1. OT 3S SN from the 2nd opposite party which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party. At the time of installation itself, water came out of the indoor unit of the Air conditioner and the staff of the 2nd opposite party asked the complainant to register a complaint with 3rd opposite party, their authorised service centre. After one week, they attended the issue and it was rectified.
After the 1st and 2nd free services, it was found that there is no cooling at all from the Air conditioner when it is switched on. He again registered a complaint with the 3rd Opposite Party and their technicians visited the house and inspected the Air conditioner. As per the technicians, the gas which is filled in the Air conditioner is not found and they have to refill it. In December 2019, they refilled the gas, but within a week the functioning of the Air conditioner came to a stands till for want of cooling. After that the opposite parties did not do anything to cure the defects.
8. In order to prove his contentions, the complainant filed an application for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner and he after inspection filed report which is marked as Ext.C1.
In Ext.C1, the expert reported that when he checked the gas (refrigerant) pressure and level in the compressor, condenser and evaporator, it is found that the standing pressure is 150 bar which shows to be low since the minimum pressure required for smooth operation is 175 – 200 bar.
When he switched on the Air conditioner and checked whether there is any cooling effect, he found that there is no cooling after 10 minutes of start and the compressor and fan will be automatically in off condition.
9. He further conducted different tests to find out the leakage in the Air conditioning system and noticed a minor leakage in the system. He could not identify whether minor leakage is present in condenser coils, evaporator coils or any of the joints present in the system. He concluded that the alleged defect is due to manufacturing issue and is very difficult to identify and cure.
Even though the 1st opposite party filed objection to the Commission Report that, it can be marked only through the Commissioner, they did not file any application to cross examine the expert or to set aside the report. So the objection is overruled. So the complainant had succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the system and Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
10. Points 2 to 4
According to the 1st opposite party the complainant never registered a complaint with them and they were not informed regarding the alleged defect at the relevant times. The warranty terms and conditions expired after one year.
11. 2nd opposite party in their version admitted that when the complainant informed them about the cooling issue, they advised the complainant to take up his grievance with the 1st and 3rd opposite parties and helped the complainant to register a complaint with them. This clearly shows that 1st and 3rd OPs were aware of the defect in the Air conditioner. Further, the complainant contended that during the installation itself, water came out of the indoor unit of the Air conditioner and on lodging complaint, 3rd OP’s technicians attended and rectified it. After 1st and 2nd free services, the problem of cooling issue persisted and 3rd OP’s staff refilled gas; but within a week it stopped functioning. Even after repeated requests, the opposite parties did not care to rectify the defect or replace the product. From these, it clear that the problems in the Air conditioner started from the very beginning ie within the warranty period itself.
12. Opposite parties failed to rectify the defect/replace it with a new one and it is a deficiency in service and their part. The complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss when the newly purchased Air conditioner did not serve the purpose for which it was bought. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay
(1) Rs 29,000/- being the price of A/C together with 10% interest from 28/09/20 till realization.
(2). To pay Rs 25,000/- for this Deficiency in service Rs, 20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the Complainant and Rs 15,000/- as cost of the litigation.
Once the Order is complied, the OPs are directed to take back the defective Air conditioner from the Complainant.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/- as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of this order till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 26th day of September, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A Member
