DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 434/2022

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. selling defective AC by OP3 as manufactured by OP1 and for improper services provided by OP2 who is authorized service centre for OP1. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that she purchased two new Inverter ACs, i.e. one of 1.5 Ton capacity and second of 2 Tons capacity on 08.04.2021 from Noida and these were to be installed at her Noida residence for which she paid Rs.3,418/- to the OP2.  However, the person sent by OP2 i.e. Md. Salman for the purpose of installation on 21.04.2021 was not the rightful person as he initially told the complainant that electricity wire of four core has to be installed and for that twenty meters of four core wire is required whereas in fact only 5-6 meters wire was required and secondly he even did not installed that wire rather  stated that it is not his job to install four core wire and therefore complainant had to call another service provider for the purpose of changing three core wire with four core wire and not only this, 24 meter of the wire which was asked for by the employee of OP2, was utilized only upto 5-6 meters and remaining four core wire was kept without any use.  It is further stated that even the said 2 Ton AC was not properly installed and he had cut the connecting copper wire coming out of the AC indoor unit and even broke black coloured plastic stand placed at the back of the indoor unit of AC.  Even then he did not install the AC and told that stabilizer in the AC is not fully charged and when he was installing the AC it did not install properly and there was always an apprehension of falling down of the AC.  Not only this even the exit water pipe has also not been properly installed.  After the installation, it was observed that AC is not providing proper cooling and then the complainant approached the OP, who through one Mr. Rajender had approached the complainant and assured the complainant to get the two Tons AC replaced with the new one which was sent by the OP but it was observed that the AC sent by the OP1 was a wifi AC which was not required and when this fact was informed to the OP1, he informed that the AC with the same configuration would be available only in the next season and then it would be replaced.  It was not replaced till date and therefore there are various deficiencies in the workmanship by the person sent by OP2 who did not install the AC properly and deficiency on the part of OP3 who sold the defective AC and then he did not replace the AC despite assurance.  Apart from this fact various allegations have been leveled against the workmanship of the OPs who had visited the residence of the complainant for the purpose of giving report with respect to the defective AC and ultimately complainant issued legal notice to them and filed the present complaint thereby seeking direction to the OP to replace the AC and rectifying the wiring and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and also to return Rs.86,500/- towards the cost of AC.    
3. OP1 and OP2 were served on 09.09.2022 and 10.09.2022 respectively but they did not file reply within limitation period and as such the written statement of OP1 and OP2 was ordered to be not read for the purpose of their defense. 
4. Complainant has argued the matter and OP has filed written submission. 
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The case of the complainant is w.r.t. two ACs which she purchased for an amount of Rs.86,500/- and which the complainant is claiming in the prayer clause that this amount be returned, however in the entire complaint there is not even a single allegation as far as AC which was of 1.5 Ton capacity and which was costing Rs.39,500/-has been mentioned i.e. neither w.r.t. defective AC nor w.r.t. improper installation nor w.r.t. electricity wiring nor w.r.t. the person came to install the AC.  Therefore, claiming the refund of Rs.86,500/- has not been supported with any document.  What relief the complainant would be entitled to, if any would therefore be discussed in the subsequent paras as now the Commission is adverting to the contention w.r.t. non-proper supplying/installation of second AC which was of two Ton capacity having cost price of Rs.47,000/-.  The Complainant has two fold complaints w.r.t. this two Ton AC i.e. w.r.t. the behavior of the person who came to install and secondly w.r.t. the AC was having certain manufacturing defect and defective AC has been sold.  As far as first contention is concerned whether the building has three core wire fitting or whether the four core wire was required for the purpose of installation of AC has not been proved.  The person who demanded the four core AC is supposed to be expert in its field and therefore prima facie the expert has to be believed and on the contrary the complainant has not been able to prove that there was any malafide or unlawful activity on the part of the person who came to install.  Similarly, the AC was not properly installed or he was not behaving properly or the drainage pipe was not properly installed has also not been supported with any evidence. 
7. However, as far as the non-functioning of the AC is concerned the Complainant in his complaint has stated that the person who came to install cut the connecting copper wire coming out from the AC indoor unit and he also broke coloured plastic stand placed at the back of the indoor unit of AC and then she approached the LG office through e-mail and an official from the authorized service centre came and assured that the AC would be replaced but it was not replaced is concerned, have gone unrebutted  as although it has filed written statement but since written statement was filed late and it cannot be read for the purpose of its defense.    
8. From all these facts and circumstances and believing the version of the complainant that the representative of OP1 had assured for the replacement of AC of 2 Ton capacity but has not been replaced so far on one pretext or the other, the Commission is of the opinion that the OP has to replace the AC of 2 Ton capacity of the complainant.  Although, the written statement of the OP was filed beyond statutory period but in para 4 of its written statement the OP otherwise has admitted that it took approval for the replacement of the said unit i.e. AC of 2 Ton capacity which is installed in the drawing hall area therefore even if there may not be any malafide on the part of OP but definitely the delay in replacing the unit is there.  As far as AC of 1.5 Ton capacity is concerned, neither there is any such complaint of the said unit nor any complaint has been specifically mentioned.  Therefore, complainant has been able to prove some deficiency on the part of OP1 w.r.t. AC of 2 Ton capacity installed in the drawing hall.  Accordingly, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP1 is directed to replace the broken and faulty AC of 2 Ton capacity with a new one of the same model configuration.  As far as prayer for return of Rs.86,500/- is concerned the same is declined. 
9. In these circumstances, the Complainant has not been able to prove a case for such a high compensation as prayed for, however since there is some delay in replacing the unit a compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted to the complainant payable by OP1 including the litigation expenses.      

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the OP1 would pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the entire amount of Rs.15,000/-.   

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 30.01.2024.