Complainant Arjun Chawla through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to change/replace the defective A.C. in dispute with a new one of some another manufacturing company or to refund the full price. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as unnecessary physical and mental harassment caused by the opposite party to him alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased one Air Conditioner Samsung 1.5 Ton Split on 1.08.2016 for Rs.34,300/- from the opposite party no.1 and also spent some extra charges on its installation and on purchase of Stabilizer, wires etc and its warranty is five years from the date of its purchase. The opposite party no.1 installed the abovesaid A.C. at his home without issuing any prior guideline to run the same. Hardly, till one month from the date of purchase the disputed A.C. worked properly but unfortunately on the next summer season in the month of May 2017, when he restarted by switching on the same then A.C. has already having manufacturing defect in condenser and it stopped to work by tripping after 5 to 7 minutes which caused inconvenience, mental harassment and loss in business due to a defective piece received by him. He immediately informed the opposite party no.1 who assured to change of defective A.C. with new one of another manufacturing company within 2-3 days and also advised to inform the opposite party no.2 i.e. Samsung Service Centre, Pathankot on its toll free No. i.e. 180030008282 and he again immediately informed and his complaint was registered vide complaint No.4235430092 and the opposite party no.2 send their service boy who checked the same and also reported that the condenser of the A.C. is damaged due to which there is problem of gas leakage into it and also asked that the warranty is void and also demanded Rs.10,000/- from him as service and repair of condenser then he asked about the reason of damage of condenser then the service boy replied that because of low quality of aluminum layers and gas pipes fitted in the condenser has damaged but he requested that the abovesaid product is in its warranty period so he has legal right to take the benefit of warranty but no one heard his genuine request. He also requested to refund the full amount i.e. price of A.C. in dispute but the opposite party refused to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant has purchased one Air conditioner Samsung 1.5 Ton split on 1.8.2016 for a sum of Rs.34,300/- from the opposite party no.1 i.e. M/s.Anil T.V.Centre, Hardochannia Road, Gurdaspur. It was admitted that material was purchased from M/s.Shree Malakali Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. White Tower, 379 MMM Road, Amritsar and was sold to the complainant as it was received in packed good condition. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party no.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply. Certain preliminary objections have been taken by the opposite party no.2 and 3. On merits, it was submitted that there is only one year comprehensive warranty for the said unit and additional 4 year warranty for condenser only. The warranty is subject warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card supplied with the product. It was admitted that complaint was lodged by complainant vide complaint No.4235430092 dated 28.04.2017 and opposite party duly attended the said complaint and send their service engineer who checked the said unit and reported that Condenser of the said unit is damaged due to faulty installation and also told complainant that due to physical damage caused to the product it is warranty void condition and repair will be done on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant but complainant refused to get the said unit repaired on chargeable basis. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
5. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
6. Sh.Yash Pal Kaushal, dealer of opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.
7. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager Ex.OP-2,3/1 alongwith document Ex.OP-2,3/2 and closed the evidence.
8. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the participating litigants) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the callous/vexatious pleadings and intentional non-production of some documents requisite as well as vital to those, of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the litigating sides.
9. We find that the complainant had on record purchased (affidavit Ex.C1) the Sam Sung 1.5 Ton Split A.C. vide Bill # 62 dated 01.08.2016 for Rs 34.300/- (Ex.C2) from the OP1 Vendor along with 5-year warranty (Ex.C3) confirmation. However, the A.C. proved to be defective and mal-functioning (frequent auto switch-offs) from the Summer months but the same was not allegedly rectified as has been the duty/liability of the OP2 Service Centre and instead they demanded Rs.10,000/- as repair charges. Further, the complainant has alleged that the defective A.C. had caused unnecessary harassment and inconvenience to them for which they deserve statutory cost and compensation etc as the titled opposite parties had refused to repair/ replace the A.C. in question and has thus prompted the present complaint.
10. We find that the complainant could not produce any supporting evidence (job-card/technical report/expert opinion etc) on the alleged malfunctioning of his A.C. except own affidavit (Ex.C1) and as such he shall not be straightway entitled to the statutory award of ‘replacement/ refund’ etc.
11. On the other hand, the OP1 vendor has stated/ deposed that the repair/service has been the duty of the OP2 Service Centre whereas Replacement/ Refund etc has been the liability of the OP3 manufacturers, only and he may not be held liable/responsible for those. We are certainly not convinced with the pleadings of the OP1 vendor and find him jointly and co-extensively liable with the other titled opposite parties. We further find that the OP2 and OP3 have filed their joint written statement making irrelevantly long pleadings quoting all the law as against the normal accepted practice of putting forth the comments on the ‘facts’ in issue on the ‘subject-matter’. Somehow, the titled OPs here, have failed to negate the complained-of allegations through some cogent evidence and that rakes them up against an adverse statutory award under the applicable C P Act, 1986. However, we (in line with the settled law) are inclined to subject the ‘award’ to the restrictions of ‘moderation’ so as not to cause undue enrichments to the ‘awardee’ and/ or to cast undue excessive ‘distresses’ to the delinquent parties.
12. In the light of the all above, we find the hue of actionable statutory merit in the present complaint to the extent that the same shall be best disposed of by directing the titled opposite parties to collect the A.C. equipment etc from the recorded address of the complainant rectify/ repair the reported defect in its entirety and deliver it back along with certificate of its ‘optimum-functionality’ but within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise they shall be jointly liable to its replacement with a fresh piece and/or refund of its full invoice price. The above exercise shall be duly completed within the prescribed period of days. The OP's are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost and compensation.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
May 18, 2018 Member.
*MK*
