District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 208/2020.
Date of Institution:21.07.2020.
Date of Order:28.03.2023.
M/s. Durga Tools India, Plot NO. 39-A, Nangla Gujran Industrial Area, Near Shyam Dharamkanta NIT, Faridabad through its proprietor Mr. Vikram Singh.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Fujitsu General India Private Limited, Ist Floor, 10(26) 80th Street, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083 through its MD/Diector Mr. Koji Matsumoto.
2. M/s. Shanti Sales Corporation, Shop No. 1074, Jawahar Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana, through its prop. Mr. Deepak Sharma.
3. M/s. S.B. Refrigeration, FCA-56, Shyam Colony, 100 feet Road, Near IDBI Bank, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana through its proprietor.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Rajesh Ahlawat , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. P.L.Garg , counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 22.03.2022.
Opposite party No.3 exparte vide order dated 28.09.2021.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased two O General Inverter Air Conditions 1.5 Ton bearing Model No. AOGR18JCC-B alongwith luminous inverter and battery on dated 13.07.2018 from the opposite party NO.2 vide bill/invoice No. G02720 dated 13.07.2018 for the total sale consideration of the above mentioned A.C with inverter and battery to opposite party No.2 on the same day. Just after one month from the date of installation of the above said air conditioners the complainant found that there was manufacturing defect in the said air conditioners because these air conditioners were not giving cooling. Accordingly the complainant contacted to the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party opposite party No.2 sent the complainant to opposite party No.3. The employee of the opposite party No.3 taken the said air conditioners who repaired the said air conditioners and installed at the premises of the complainant. But the air conditioners did not completely work and again shown the same problems. At the time of purchasing of the said air conditioners the opposite parties had given guarantee of the said air conditioners for the minimum period of one year and warranty/guarantee of compress for the period of 5 years. In the month of April 2019, the complainant requested to the opposite party No.2 either to replace the above said air conditioners with another one or would refund the amount of sale consideration then the opposite party No.2 sent the complainant to
opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 prepared the service report dated 24.4.2019 of air conditioners thereby showing gas problem in its. Thereafter the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 installed air conditioners at the premises of the complainant. But when air conditioners did not properly work then the complainant again contacted to the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3, then the opposite party No.3 prepared service report dated 15.5.2019 thereby showing the same defect of gas problem, When there was no improvement in the functioning of the air conditioners then the opposite party No.3 again taken the said ACS for repairing purpose and prepared service report dated 6.6.2019 and shown installation fault. Thereafter the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 again installed fault. Thereafter the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3, again installed the said air conditioners but the same did not function. Thereafter there were rainy days and cold period. The complainant sent legal notice dated 12.6.2020 to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) either to replace the air conditioners with another new branded air conditioners immediately or alternatively to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.85,937 alongwith CGST & SGST taxes alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of A.C.S to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per own admission and facts on record the complainant purchased the unit on 13.07.2018 and made complaint first time after nine months was found in the
unit except gas problem and same was a routine problem and further as per own submission of the complainant again on the same problem of gas the job card was prepared on 15.5.2019 DEL115051900422 and this problem was removed and thereafter on 6.6.2019 DEL106061900354 as claimed by the complainant it was simply a gas leak fault and thereafter approximately one year he claimed defective machinery having no reason to pin point on the alleged allegation of defective machinery. It was pointed out that the answering opposite party even after warranty period help the complainant on his request and it was revealed that the problem which were being occurred was due to electricity problem if any was due to electricity voltage problem and on the undertaking of complainant that he would pay the charges of the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 if PCB defect was replaced which occurred due to voltage problem and that too occurred after warranty period and in this respect the service report dated 17.7.2019 and 31.07.2019 were clear that PCB defect also occurred due to voltage problem and the same was replaced raising bill of Rs.10,900/- but the complainant did not pay this amount and said amounts remain outstanding as such to avoid liability it appear that complaint in question had been filed. Thus from the facts on record it was clear that the units were not defective but the complainant knowingly and intentionally without any reason filed this false complaint. The complainant himself failed to justify his claim for replacement of the unit. The unit/machinery legally was being changed when there was a manufacture defect but in this case the complainant himself have used the unit before the initial complaint for almost in warranty period properly and defects so occurred were simple which occurred generally in using the machinery and in warranty period they were removed and as per own knowledge of the complainant the unit was working properly and now after thought that too after warranty period he was claiming change of unit by alleging defective unit without any justification or without any technical report which was not possible at
all. It was submitted that if such types of complaint were being entertained then whole system of a manufacturer of a machinery shall collapse. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Registered notice sent to opposite party No.2 on 21.02.2022 not received back either served or unserved. Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Learned counsel or the complainant filed the tracking report in which the item delivered confirmed. Further wait was not justified. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.03.2022.
4. Case has been called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. Therefore, opposite party No.3 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2021.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s. Fujitsu General India Private Ltd. with the prayer to: a) either to replace the air conditioners with another new branded air conditioners immediately or alternatively to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.85,937 alongwith CGST & SGST taxes alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of A.C.S to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for
causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Vikram Singh Proprietor of M/s. Durge Tools India, Ex.C-1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 & 3Service reports, Ex.C-4 – wardsapp message, Ex.C-5 – postal receipt, Ex.C-6 – legal notice.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Nitin Kumar, area Service Manager, of M/s. Fujitsu General India Pvt. Ltd., Ex.R-1 product warranty card, Ex.R-2 to 4– Service reports.
8. In this complaint, the complainant has prayed for either to replace the air conditioners with another new branded air conditioners immediately or alternatively to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.85,937 alongwith CGST & SGST taxes alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of A.C.S to the complainant.
9. It is evident form Tax invoice vide Ex.C-1 that the complainant purchased two O General Inverter Air Conditions 1.5 Ton bearing Model No. AOGR18JCC-B alongwith luminous inverter and battery on dated 13.07.2018 from the opposite party NO.2 vide bill/invoice No. G02720 dated 13.07.2018for Rs.121500/-. As per service report dated 24.04.2019 and 15.05.2019 vide Ex.C-2 & 3 showing the defect of gas problem. There was no improvement in the functioning of air conditioners then the A.C in question for repairing purpose and prepared service report dated 06.06.2019 and shown installation fault.
10. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite
parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally to deduct the 15% as administrative charges from the total amount i.e Rs.85,937.50 as the complainant has used the air conditioner in question for 9 months. There are no order as to costs. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old A.C. to the opposite party after the receipt of the copy of order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 21.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
( Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
