Haryana

Panchkula

CC/567/2019

BHARAT VERMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EITECH APPLIANCES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

23 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	567 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	01.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	23.05.2022

 

 

Bharat Verma s/o Late Sh. Gulshan, H.No. 343, Old Housing Board Colony, Sector-19, Panchkula, Haryana

 

                                                                ….Complainant.

 

Versus

1.     M/s Eltech Appliances Pvt. Ltd.(Vestar AC), 684-690, Seethakathi       Business Centre, ETA Star Building, 6^th Floor, Annasalai, Chennai-    600006, Tamilnadu.

2.     M/s. Eltech Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Vestar AC), SCO-2475-76, Sector-    22-    C, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh-160022.

3.     PB National Enterprises, Near Namdhari Tailor, Zirakpur,   Chandigarh Highway, Zirakpur-140603.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate with, Sh.Sumit Gulati,    Authorised representative of OPs No.1 & 2.

                        OP No.3 already ex parte vide order dated 21.11.2019.

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.                The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Eltech(Vestar)split A.C. for personal use on 22.04.2018 from OP No.3, but just after 3-4 months i.e. September 2018 A.C. started giving trouble as there was water leakage issue in it. On the advice of the OP No.3, the complainant lodged a complaint with customer care number but the complaint was sent to Karnal service centre instead of Panchkula/ Chandigarh service centre and after repeated calls, service engineer Sh. Dharampal visited the house of the complainant. Unfortunately, at that time, water leakage didn’t happen and he left. On the next day, same issue happened & Sh.Dharampal checked the AC but was not able to rectify the same. After that many service engineer of OP No.2 checked the AC but none of them was able to resolve the issue. In this season i.e. 2019, again same issue started occurring and the complainant called on OP No.2, engineer, who visited and checked the AC on 24.07.2019 on 25.07.2019 but left the house of the complainant without even touching the AC. The engineer of OP No.2 stated that warranty of AC was over and they will repair it on the payment basis. After that, the complainant approached the higher authorities of OPs and Sh.Prakash(AGM), Sh.Himansh Jain and Sh.Narender but all in vain. On 13.08.2019, Sh. Narender told the complainant that this leakage is due to faulty part i.e. Cooling Coil and need to be replaced for which they need approval. Since then, they again took 2 weeks more to replace the part and finally handed over the internal unit back to him on 31.08.2019. This was the second time, they took back unit for repair in one year and almost visited the house of complainant around 10-12 times. On 01.09.2019, when the complainant switched on the A.C. again, water leakage was there and upon calling, their engineer visited the house of the complainant and refitted the AC.  Due to the acts and conduct of the OPS, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; no cause of action; not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is stated that on 17.08.2018, OP received complaint no.HAR21708-1800003 and complaint no.HAR217081800002 from the complainant at Karnal, Haryana. On the complaint, a technician of the OP visited to the house of the complainant and on inspection, it was found that there no water leakage problem exists in the Air Conditioner and accordingly complaint was closed. It is also stated that on 26.07.2019, the complainant lodged the complaint No.HAR217081800001 with the OPs in Karnal. Thereafter, complaint no. HAR217081800041 and complaint no.HAR217081800042 lodged with the OPs. It is submitted that on the complaint of the complainant, it was informed to him as the Air conditioner warranty expired and complainant has to pay the visiting charges. But the complainant was not ready to pay the visiting charges; even then, technician of the OP visited the house of the complainant 29.07.2019 and checked the Air conditioners. On inspection, technician found that Evaporator coil was to be replaced. Technician informs the cost of R.6,000/- of the said parts to him, but the complainant denied to pay it. Being goodwill gesture, OP replaced Evaporator coil and Gas refilling free of cost. After replacement of the parts free of cost and gas refilling OP spent a sum of Rs.6,000/- on Evaporator coil and Rs.3,000/- on Gas refilling, technician requested the complainant to put the signature on the job-sheet, but the complainant flatly refused to put the signature on job-sheet.  So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             Replication to the written statements of the OP was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.             The complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2, and gone through the entire record including written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2, minutely and carefully.

6.             In the present complaint, refund of a sum of Rs.24,300/-, which was paid by the complainant in lieu of the price of the AC in question including installation charges and charges of the A.C. stand, as per Annexure C-3 & C-4, has been claimed on the ground that OPs have failed to rectify the defects pertaining to water leakage from the Air Conditioner. As per complainant, the service engineer of OP No.2, which is service centre of OP No.1, has failed to resolve the issue of water leakage. Even the intervention of AGM level Officer of OP no.1 failed to bring any positive results. During the arguments, the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint as well as affidavit (Annexure C-A), relied upon Annexure C-1, C-2, C-6 to C-8 in support of his contentions  and contended that the problem of water leakage in the A.C. had occurred during the warranty period, which has not been rectified so far by the  OPs.                      

7.             On the other hand, the OPs No.1 & 2 have contested the complaint mainly on the ground that the defects in the A.C. cannot be proved in the absence of an expert report. The learned counsel while reiterating the averments made in the written statement, contended that there was no defect, much less any manufacturing defect in the AC, and thus, the complainant is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the following case laws :-

1. Shiv Parsad Paper Industries Vs. Senior Machinery Company, 2006(1)CLT 527(NC).
2. Kamal Kishore Vs. Electronic Corporation of India, 2010 revision petition no.3092.

 

                Continuing the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the complaints lodged by the complainant were attended properly each time, though, the warranty period had already expired. It is further contended that evaporator coil was replaced alongwith gas refilling free of cost, on which the OPs had incurred an expenses of Rs.6,000/-and Rs.3,000/- respectively. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the complainant enjoyed the facility of A.C. during the summer season without facing any problem and thus, the complaint deserves dismissal being baseless and meritless.

8.             Having perused the e-mail conversation(AnnexureC-2) between the complainant and representative of OPs No.1 & 2, it is evident that problem of water leakage in the split A.C. arose in  month of August/ September 2018 itself  i.e. within the warranty period as the A.C. was purchased in the month of April, 2018 having a warranty of one year. The issue of water leakage in A.C. was not resolved completely as  it again occurred in the next summer season, 2019 and therefore, it was the liability of the OPs to rectify the defects pertaining to water leakage in A.C. in question as the same had occurred during the warranty period. As per services and installation report Annexure C-6,  C-7 & C-8,  inner unit of AC was taken by the Ops for carrying out the necessary repairs and cooling coil was replaced but the problem of water leakage still persisted in the A.C. The denial of any defect or any manufacturing defect in the A.C. by the Ops is not tenable in the light of facts that defect in the AC could not be rectified despite several visits of the engineers of the OPs. Mere denial by the Ops carries no value. Keeping in view the lodging of several complaints by the complainant with OPs pertaining to the defect in the A.C. in question, it was imperative upon the OPs to get the A.C. thoroughly inspected by a team of experts but the Ops preferred not to get the same inspected through any expert team for the reasons best known to them. The case laws as relied upon by the learned counsel for the OPs are of no help to the case of the OPs, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, the job-sheet (Annexure R-2) relied upon by the Ops No.1 & 2 lacks credibility as it says that evaporator coil was replaced on 29.07.2019 whereas the evaporator coil/ cooling coil was dispatched from Chennai on 19.08.2019 as per conversation(Annexure C-1) between Sh.Narender and the complainant; thus, the contentions of the Ops No.1 & 2 denying manufacturing defect in A.C. is not based on credible, cogent and adequate evidence.

9.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 & 2 while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief. The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3.

10.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1.     To refund a sum of Rs.24,300/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to return the A.C. 
2.     To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses

 

 11.           The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/orderS within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced on: 23.05.2022

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                Member                  Member                                President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini

                                             Member