DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 268/2017
D.No.________________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. R.L. ARORA S/o SH. D.C. ARORA,
R/o 88-B, WEST MUKHERJEE NAGAR,
DELHI-110009. … COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. M/s SARGAM (I) ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/MANAGER),
B-8, MODEL TOWN, DELHI-110009.
2. M/s ETA GENERAL PVT. LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/MANAGER),
221, OKHLA INDL. AREA, PH-III,
1st FLOOR, NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT: CORPORATE OFFICE:
(THROUGH ITS CEO),
ETA STAR HOUSE No.71/63, 3rd FLOOR,
STERLING ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600034. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 31.03.2017
Date of decision: 30.03.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs
CC No. 268/2017 Page 1 of 9
under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986thereby alleging that the complainant purchased an O-General 2 Ton Window Air Conditioner for a sum of Rs.41,000/- vide invoice no. SMT-0491 on 10.07.2016 from OP-1 and OP-1 also charged Rs.500/- towards installation of the said AC and OP-1 claimed itself to be the authorized franchisee and agent of OP-2 and OP-1 for self and on behalf of OP-2 asserted and stated that the said AC carries a guarantee of 5 years against any defect and also 2 free services and allured and induced the complainant that the said AC is a Super Quiet World Class Machine with proven track record without exception and the manufacturer is well known for quality and durability of the product and for providing trouble free services in case of any need. However, the guarantee card and free service vouchers etc. were neither received with the AC nor provided till date inspite of telephonic requests, e-mails and the legal notice dated 29.11.2016 and OP-1 further made tall claims and enticed the complainant to purchase the said AC by giving rosy picture that would not face any kind of difficulty or inconvenience at any stage and in case of any defect found in the machine, the manufacturer will replace the product or even refund the price without demur. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was shocked and surprised when the said AC installation/operation was found to
CC No. 268/2017 Page 2 of 9
be a shouting and howling machine and creating high degree of increasing noise and the complainant immediately contacted OP-1 on phone, thereafter, as suggested, the complainant contacted OP-2 several times on phone i.e. 011-607270052 on 27.07.2016 and 011-607280322 on 28.07.2016 and also through e-mails making several requests for either replacement of the highly noisy AC with a super quiet AC. The complainant further alleged that OP-2 deputed mechanic to check the machine who after checking informed that the noise was being generated by the compressor which has no remedy and the mechanic has recorded his findings “Noise” in 2 reports and further the said AC was also checked by the engineers of OP-2 several times who tried to reduce the noise level but failed to do so and confirmed source of noise as stated above. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent e-mails to OP-2 demanding replacement of the said AC with a super quiet noiseless machine or to take back the defective AC and refund the price and the complainant was informed on telephone that the matter has been referred to head office but no reply was received thereafter. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has also served OPs with a legal notice on 29.11.2016 through Regd. A.D. post and called upon them to replace the said defective AC with a super quiet/ noiseless AC of the same model and capacity
CC No. 268/2017 Page 3 of 9
or to take back the defective AC and refund the entire cost of the said AC amounting to Rs.41,500/- and also to pay damages/compensation etc. In response to the said legal notice, OP-2 sent a false and baseless reply dated 17.01.2017 through Counsel wherein OP admitted that ‘the technician/engineer of the company checked AC through noise equipment machine and found that the noise level was from inside areas is 65 DB and from the outside area is 69 DB which was normal and common noise level. However, no basis for treating the above stated noise level as normal and common has been given. The complainant further alleged that with regard to noise pollution level the engineers of OP-2 has handed over to the complainant the AC brochure during one of the visits to check the AC on 08.09.2016, wherein the noise level (indoor unit) of 2 ton AC is shown as 34 DB and again it is stated that the limit of noise pollution (regulation and control) Rules, 2000 clearly stipulated that the limit of noise level in residential area as 55 DB during day time and that of 45 DB during night time which is the statutory noise level limit to be adhered to by all including OPs. The complainant further alleged that OP-2 has already admitted that the noise level being generated by the AC in question is 65 DB inside and 69 DB outside which is clearly in violation of 34 DB level given in the own brochure and also in violation of the
CC No. 268/2017 Page 4 of 9
statutory provisions in the Noise Pollution (Regulations and Control) Rules, 2000 i.e. 55 DB during day time and 45 DB during night time in residential area. The complainant further alleged that despite repeated complaints problem with the AC has not been resolved by the OPs and the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaintpraying for direction to OP to replace the disputed AC with a super quiet/noiseless AC of same model and capacity or to refund the entire cost of the said AC amounting to Rs.41,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. The complainant has also sought Rs.16,500 towards cost of litigation.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and have filed their separate written statement & reply.In the written statement, OP-1 has not disputed the purchase of one Window AC manufactured by O’ General on 10.07.2016 from OP-1 vide invoice no. SMT-04910 and the complainant was duly informed about the cost and warrantee terms of the said product after being fully satisfied by all the information the complainant purchased the said product and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. OP-2 submitted in their written statement submitted that neither there is any manufacturing or inherent defect in the AC of the
CC No. 268/2017 Page 5 of 9
complainant nor the complainant has placed on record any technical or expert report and OP is always ready to rectify the genuine defects, if any, in the product as per warrantee of the same and on call of the complainant the technician/engineer of the company visited the place of the complainant and inspected the AC and found that AC was working in good condition and the technician/engineer of the company also checked AC through noise equipment machine and found that the noise level from inside area is 65 DB and from the outside area is 69 DB which is normal and common noise level.
5. The complainant filed separate replication and denied the submissions of OPs.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. SMT-04910 dated 10.07.2016 for purchase of WAC O General AXGT24FHTA AC for Rs.41,000/- issued by OP-1, copy of e-mail sent by the complainant to OP for not providing guarantee card with AC, copies of various e-mail communications dated 10.07.2016, 27.07.2016, 29.07.2016, 30.07.2016, 20.08.2016, 21.09.2016 and 22.09.2016 between the parties, copy of legal notice dated 29.11.2016 sent by the complainant to OPs through his Counsel by speed post/AD, copy of
CC No. 268/2017 Page 6 of 9
Reply dated 17.01.2017 sent by OP to the Counsel for the complainant, copy of brochure of OP-2 specifying technical specifications in respect of noise level which was handed over to the complainant on 08.09.2016 by the representative of OP-2 and copy of The Noise Pollution (Regulation And Control) Rules, 2000. The complainant has also filed photographs regarding advertisement and given by OP outside carton box of O-general two ton AC specifying the AC as “super power-super quiet”.
7. On the other hand on behalf of OP-1, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative and Sh. Sanjay Pandey, Authorized Representative of OP-2 filed their affidavits in evidence which are on the basis of the written statement/reply of OPs. OP-2 has also filed copy of job card. OPs have also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the parties as well as the defence taken by the OP-2 in the written statement. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of thecomplainant. Moreover, the engineer of OP-2 on checking of the disputed AC of the complainant has found that the noise level from inside area is 65DB and from outside area is 69DB which is in quite excess limit. As per specifications of OP-2, the noise level from inside of the AC should
CC No. 268/2017 Page 7 of 9
not be more than 53DB and from outside level should not be more than 69DB. The engineers of the OP-2 have not been able to reduce the noise level in the disputed AC of the complainant despite their efforts. A consumer is not expected to lodge to complaints of a product frequently unless and until there is some defect in the product. Frequent lodging of complaint about noise problem clearly shows that there is some inherent and manufacturing defect in the Split A.C. which was sold and supplied to the complainant which has not been resolved by the OPs. Accordingly, OP-2 is held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. Accordingly, OP-2 isdirected as under:
i) To pay/refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.41,500/- being the price of the ACalongwith installation charges on return of the defective Split A.C. by the complainant.
ii) To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
10. The above order shall be complied by the OP-2 within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liableto pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of
CC No. 268/2017 Page 8 of 9
payment. If OP-2 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 30th day of March, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 268/2017 Page 9 of 9
