DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.77/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 27thDAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Pradeep Kumar Jain.
S/o.B.Rikhab Chand Jain,
No.25, Nambuliar Street, 4th floor,
Sowcarpet, Chennai -600 079. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director,
2nd Floor, Tower A&B, DLF Cyber Greens,
DLF Cybercity Phase 3, Gurgaon 122 002.
Haryana, India.
2.Turbo Cools, Rep. by its Dealer,
Old No.250, New No.10,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Party in Person.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : M/s.Veda Law Firm.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 05.12.2022 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and M/s.Veda Law Firm, counsel for the 1st opposite party and Advocate Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam, Advocate counsel for the 2nd oppsoite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in the purchase of Air Conditioner along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.56,000/- the cost of the AC and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was submitted by the complainant that he had purchased Air Conditioner, namely Mitsubishi Electric Split 1.50Tr (5 star), IDU: 7013335T, ODU: 7014330T, Model MS GK18VAD1, MU-GK18VA-D1 from Turbo Cools, who was the Authorized Sales and Service dealer of the 1st opposite party. The said AC did not work properly from the day one of purchase and the opposite parties attended the fault on various dates viz 18.08.2017, 22.09.2017, 26.10.2017, 27.02.2018, 02.05.2018 and 08.06.2018. But the fault of the AC was not rectified despite the services done by the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant sent an email on 09.06.2018 to the opposite parties to replace the AC Unit or to refund the amount after taking back the AC. But, there was no response and hence the present complaint was filed after issuance of legal notice dated 13.07.2018 for the following reliefs;
To direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.56,000/- the cost of the AC;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and suffering caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 1st opposite party:-
The 1st opposite party submitted that they are having a very good reputation in the India market and known for its swift redressal mechanisms and goodwill with customers. It was submitted that the 1st opposite party was the original equipment trader of the product viz 1.5tr Air Conditioner, Unit Model (MS-GK18VA/MU-GK18VA-7013335T, 7014330T) which was the subject matter of the present dispute. They had appointed M/s.Freeze Air Cools as its primary and authorized dealer and was not aware of the 2nd opposite party nor was it aware that the 2nd opposite party was the sub dealer of the said M/s.Freeze Air Cools. The subject matter unit was also distributed by the 1st opposite party to M/s.Freeze Air Cools under the dealership arrangement. The 1st opposite party was not aware nor was it a party to the transaction between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. The 1st opposite party was not aware that the unit was sold by the 2nd opposite party or that it was installed by the 2nd opposite party in the complainant’s premises. The 1st opposite party submitted that they were not aware of the service visits made by the 2nd opposite party. When the complaint lodged a Toll Free complaint stating lack of cooling, the 1st opposite party transferred it to its authorized dealer for further action. A technician from M/s.Freeze Air Cool had also visited the premises of the complainant and had found that the indoor coil had been choked with dust, which was hampering the performance of the unit. This issue was also intimated to the complainant. it was further informed to the complainant that a spare indoor coil would be replaced free of cost, which the complainant had refused. Further on 09.06.2018, an engineer of the 1st opposite party, viz: Mr.Arun Kumar had also visited the complainant premises and has recommended that the “Indoor Heat Exchanger” be replaced. The complainant had refused to accept the same and had sought for replacement of the product itself. Since the warranty period was almost near the expiry, the engineer of the 1st opposite party as a goodwill gesture and good business practice, and to make the customer feel more secure the engineer extended the warranty period for another six months and also undertook to replace the spare parts free of cost. But the complainant had refused the same and sought for unit replacement. It is pertinent to state that, even during the subsistence of warranty, the unit itself cannot be replaced but the spares can be replaced. As the complainant was not responsive and stopped replying for the emails sent by the engineer who was seeking permission to install the spare, the opposite party closed the complaint due to lack of communication. The complainant was very keen on getting only a refund, even after the 1st opposite party agreed to extend the warranty period for an additional six months. Thus stating that the issue could not be resolved only due to the non responsive attitude of the complainant stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the 1st opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-
The crux of the version filed by the 2nd opposite party was that they were only the vendors of the Air Conditioner manufactured by the 1st opposite party. It was specifically denied by them that Rs.9,000/-was paid towards the installation of charges. It was further stated that the premises of the complainant where the AC was fixed at No.5/3, Krishnappa Naicken Street, kondithope, Chennai 79 which was situated in a very congested locality in George Town area and after one month of installation the complainant had given a complaint regarding cooling issue and the same was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant by top upping gas, general service. On 22.09.2017 another complaint was made and it was found to occur due to dust accumulation and the filter got blocked which was serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party states that another complaint was received on 26.10.2017 and on inspection it was found that there was a gas leak, which was forthwith rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party states that thereafter on 27.02.2018 the complainant lodged a complaint with regard to the non functioning of the AC and on inspection it was found that there was huge dust block in the unit, the same was cleaned and the AC unit was working in a perfect condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. Once again on 02.05.2018 a complaint was given by the complainant and on inspection it was found that the unit was chocked with dust, hence the entire unit was cleaned and the AC was working in good condition, but the complainant was not satisfied with the same and stated to the representative of the opposite party that they will contact the 1st opposite party and redress their grievance. Thereafter the opposite party was never contacted by the complainant with any complaint. Only in the service report dated 08.06.2018 the complainant for the first time had recorded dis-satisfaction regarding the servicing of the AC Unit. The opposite party further states that as far as its service is concerned it had done good quality service on all the occasions to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant and there was absolutely no complaint as against them regarding the servicing of the AC unit on all the occasions. The opposite party was also not aware of the shifting of the AC to another place namely No.25, Nambuliar Street, 4th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79. Absolutely there is no manufacturing defect in the AC unit. Further as they are not the manufacturer of the AC unit, they are not at all necessary party to the complaint. Thus stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part the 2nd opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on their side. On the side of 1st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 was filed by them. On the side of 2nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were filed on their side.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the allegation of deficiency in service as alleged against the opposite parties in the sale and service of the AC has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Purchase bill and Delivery Receipt issued by 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A1;
Service report by 2nd opposite party dated 18.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Service report by 2nd opposite party dated 22.09.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;
Service report by 2nd opposite party dated 26.10.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
Service report by 2nd opposite party dated 27.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A5;
Service report by 2nd opposite party dated 02.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;
Service report by Mitsubishi electric air conditioners dated 08.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
Dismandling and Installing report by freeze air cools dated 03.07.2018 & 04.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;
Email sent details to Mitsubishi electric air conditioners dated 09.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;
Email replied details by Mitsubishi electric air conditioners dated 11.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A10;
Email replied details by Mitsubishi electric air conditioners dated 13.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A11;
Legal notice sent by complainant to opposite parties with postal receipt dated 13.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A12;
Acknowledgement card and post delivery details was marked as Ex.A13;
Letter sent by 2nd opposite party dated 21.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A14;
On the side of the 1st opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their contention;
Invoice from freeze air coos to turbo cools dated 30.06.2017 was marked as Ex.B1;
Tax Invoice dated 30.06.2017 was marked as Ex.B2;
Service Report to the complainant dated 18.08.2017 was marked as Ex.B3;
Service Report to the complainant dated 22.09.2017 was marked as Ex.B4;
Service Report to the complainant dated 26.10.2017 was marked as Ex.B5;
Service Report to the complainant dated 27.02.2018 was marked as Ex.B6;
Service Report to the complainant dated 02.05.2018 was marked as Ex.B7;
Service Report to the complainant dated 08.06.2018 was marked as Ex.B8;
Legal notice issued by the complainant dated 13.07.2018 was marked as Ex.B9;
Reply notice to the complainant dated 19.07.2018 was marked as Ex.B10;
Email conversation between the Mitsubishi and the complainant and between the Mitsubishi electric to Turbo cools was marked as Ex.B11;
Heard the oral arguments of both parties and perused the pleadings and evidences produced by both the parties.
The party in person/complainant alleges that the Air Conditioner purchased from the 2nd opposite party was not functioning properly from the day one and was having defects continuously though serviced for several times by the opposite parties. Hence the party in person/complainant sought for refund of the cost of the AC on surrender of the equipment.
On the other hand the 1st opposite party argued that they were not aware of the sale as a dealer by the 2nd opposite party and the transaction existed between them. Only after an expiry of 11 months of warranty period the complaint was brought to the knowledge of the 1st opposite party vide a complaint made through Toll Free customer care. Immediately they allotted a technican from M/s.Freeze Air Cools who found that the indoor coil had been choked with dust which was hampering the performance of the unit. When the same was informed to the complainant that the spare indoor coil would be replaced but the complainant refused for the same. Though the warranty period was over as a goodwill gesture the 1st opposite party’s engineer had extended the warranty period for another six months and also undertook to replace the spare parts free of cost. However, as the complainant was not responsive they closed the complaint.
The 2nd opposite party on the other hand argued that the documents submitted by the complainant clearly indicates that the nature of the complaint relates only to general service issues such as gas filling, removal of filter block and dust block etc. It was submitted that the complainant had removed the AC unit from its place of installation namely Krishnappa Naicken Street, Kondithope to No.25, Nambuliar Street, 4th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79 as evident by the documents submitted by the complainant themselves. It was further argued by them that though the complainant alleges manufacturing defects in the AC he has not filed any expert opinion to prove the same.
On appreciation of the materials produced by both the parties it is clear that the AC Unit purchased by the complainant was serviced at several times as evident by Ex.A2 to Ex.A7. Further as correctly pointed out by the 2nd opposite party it is seen that the AC unit was removed from its place of installation namely Krishnappa Naicken Street, Kondithope to No.25, Nambuliar Street, 4th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79 which fact was admitted by the complainant themselves vide email dated 03.07.2018 and 04.07.2018 the conversation between the complainant and the 1st opposite party from which we could infer that they were ready to offer a new coil compatible to the unit and also extend the warranty period for six months from the standard one year warranty. The last email dated 13.06.2018 sent by the opposite party shows that as there was no response from the complainant it has been mentioned that “we are waiting for your response to serve. Kindly approve to proceed further”. During the course of proceedings the opposite parties came forward to settle the issue by paying the amount on getting back the AC, however, the complainant did not agree for the same. It is seen from the service reports filed on behalf of the parties dated 18.08.2017, 22.09.2017, 26.10.2017, 27.02.2018, 02.05.2018 and 08.06.2018 (Ex.A2 to Ex.A7) that the defects were found and they were rectified/serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant. After the complaint has been attended by the 2nd opposite party only in the Action Report dated 08.06.2018 the complainant had made a mark of “not satisfied with the service of the dealer“. In the report the action taken was given as “NEED TO REPLACE COIL AND NEED TO BE WET WASHED. ALSO PROVIDING EXTENDED WARRANTY OF 6 MONTHS. AFTER THE WARRANTY PERIOD ENDS. ALSO PROVIDE SERVICE SUPPORT WITH FIRST 6MONTHS”. Thus it is clear that the opposite party at all times was ready and willing to do the service as required by the complainant. Though the allegation of the complainant that the product sold to them suffers with inherent manufacturing defects was not proved by any expert report the service reports shows that the product has some defects such as gas leakage. Even before shifting the AC, it had problems and was serviced by opposite parties. Further, the opposite parties themselves came forward to provide a new coil and extended warranty for six months. In such circumstances we hold that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in selling an AC with certain defects. Thus the point is answer accordingly holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Point No.2:-
As we have held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as the complainant is not interested in further servicing the product, we direct the opposite parties to return the cost of AC on getting back the product. Further we award Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them
a) to refund Rs.56,000/- (Rupees fifty six only) on taking back the Air Conditioner namely Mitsubishi Electric Split 1.50Tr (5 star) within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 30.06.2017 Purchase bill and deliver receipt by Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.A2 18.08.2017 Service report by Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.A3 22.09.2017 Service report by Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.A4 26.10.2017 Service report by Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.A5 27.02.2018 Service report by Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.A6 02.05.2018 Service report by Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.A7 08.06.2018 Service report by Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.A8 03.07.2018 Service report by Mitsubishi electric air conditioners. Xerox
Ex.A9 09.06.2018 Dismelting and installing report by freeze air cools. Xerox
Ex.A10 11.06.2018 Email sent details to Mitsubishi electric air conditioners. Xerox
Ex.A11 13.06.2018 Email sent details to Mitsubishi electric air conditioners. Xerox
Ex.A12 13.07.2018 Email sent details to Mitsubishi electric air conditioners. Xerox
Ex.A13 16.07.2018 Acknowledgement card and postal delivery details. Xerox
Ex.A14 21.07.2018 Letter sent by Turbo cools. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 1st opposite party:-
Ex.B1 30.06.2017 Invoice No.6421 from freeze air cools to Turbo cools. Xerox
Ex.B2 30.06.2017 Tax Invoice. Xerox
Ex.B3 18.08.2017 Service Report to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B4 22.09.2017 Service Report to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B5 26.10.2017 Service Report to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B6 27.02.2018 Service Report to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B7 02.05.2018 Service Report to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B8 08.06.2018 Service Report to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B9 13.07.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B10 19.07.2018 Reply notice to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.B11 ............... Email conversation between the Mitsubishi and the complainant and between the Mitsuishi electric to Turbo cools. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
