Date of Filing:25.03.2010<br /> Date of Order: 22.09.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 654 OF 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. A.S. Raviraj,<br /> S/o late Sri A.C. Subbrammaiah,<br /> R/at No.777, 23rd A Cross,<br /> 8th B Main, HSR Layout, 7th Phase,<br /> Bangalore. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Carrier Airconditioning & <br /> Refrigeration Ltd, <br /> No.E-301 & W301, 3rd Floor,<br /> Sunrise Chambers, 22, Halasur Road,<br /> Bangalore-42.<br /> Rep. by its MD<br /> <br /> 2.M/s. Swathi Airconditioning Pvt., Ltd.,<br /> No.72, 24th A Cross, Karesandra,<br /> BSK 2nd Stage, Bangalore-70.<br /> Rep. by its MD Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased a ‘Carrier’ make, High wall Durakool split Air Conditioner-1.0 TR Capacity (AC) and he has paid total amount of Rs.25,550/- to the opposite party No.2. He has spent another Rs.5,000/- to complete the installation. To the surprised of the complainant from day of its instillation, the AC hardly worked and it was giving one or the other problems without performing the basic necessary cooling. The said AC use to stop working in the middle of the night by blowing hot air. The Technicians had visited place of the complainant on several occasions and they use to make some repair and go but by the next moment AC use to come back its non performance condition. The opposite party No.2 had replaced indoor blower motor and PCB and also compressor. It is a clear case of manufacturing defect, exhibiting a very poor quality manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and sold by the opposite party No.2. The AC is still in the warranty period. The complainant was put to severe mental agony. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for defective product. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.25,550/- the cost of the AC and Rs.5,000/- incurred for installation and to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service. <br /> 2. The opposite party No.1 has filed defense version, stating that the unit is working in perfect condition. The opposite party under took prevent manufacturing service. The opposite party addressed the grievances of the complainant. It is submitted that the opposite party had addressed all the issues of the complainant and as such no case of deficiency of service can be made out. Therefore the opposite party No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint. The opposite party No.2 though served with notice has not appeared before this Fora and therefore opposite party No.2 placed ex-parte. <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. Heard, the arguments on both the sides. Perused the documents and pleadings. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complaint is entitled for refund of the cost of the Split AC?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant has entitled for compensation? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. I have gone through the pleadings and documents of the parties. The complainant has produced Tax Invoice dated 3-4-2009, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased Highwall-Duracool Split AC 1.0 TR Capacity from the opposite party No.2 the dealer. The Tax Invoice is for Rs.25,500/- The cost of the AC is Rs.20,444/- and VAT Rs.2,555/-, Stabilizer and MS angle frame is also purchased under same Tax Invoice. The complainant has produced service reports. It is very unfortunate that soon after installation of the AC the product started giving trouble and it is not working properly. The service engineers / technicians visited the place of the complainant several times and checked the unit and there was replacement of several parts of the unit including compressor also. This shows the product is having manufacturing defect. The complainant is a senior citizen. He has suffered mental agony and trauma due to defective product marketed by the opposite parties. This situation is very unfortunate. The opposite parties should have checked the unit thoroughly before marketing the product. The opposite party No.1 is a manufacturer should have taken the complaint made by the complainant very seriously and must have immediately replaced with a defect free unit or refunded the amount with a regret letter to the consumer, but instead of expressing the regret for the inconvenience, mental agony and the company tried to defend the product, this type of attitude on the part of the big manufacturing company is not proper. This will not enhance the prestige or credibility of the opposite parties. By the several Field failure cum service reports it has been established beyond doubt that the product supplied to the complainant definitely is having manufacturing defect. The product is still under warranty. The complainant suffered lot and spent his valuable time in giving calls to the service center and attending to rectify the defects even though several visits have been made by the technicians but, all the efforts have proved to be fertile and not useful. The product was not working properly, therefore the complainant brought to the notice of opposite party the problems faced by the complainant and opposite party also sent reply that they will arrange for the resolution of issues raised by the complainant. The complainant having highly dissatisfied, if the service rendered by the opposite parties. The complainant ultimately was forced to file complaint before this Fora for redressal of his problem. The complaint deserves to be allowed. The complainant is definitely entitled for the refund of Rs.25,500/- as per the tax invoice from the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed Rs.5,000/- towards cost incurred for installing the Split AC. However, he has not produced any documents to show that he has spent Rs.5,000/- for installing unit, therefore he is not entitle for this amount. The complainant has claimed Rs.50.,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony. On the fats and circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be met in awarding Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony. The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a case Adonis Electronics Pvt., Ltd., vs Nikil Gangan reported in 2010 CTJ 94 as held as under: <br /> “Defect-Air conditioner (AC)-Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(f)-A split AC purchased by the complainant allegedly gave an unbearable sound-Even the replaced unit suffered from the same problem-A representative of the appellant visited the place of the complainant promising to replace it as well-Promise not kept-complaint partly allowed by the District Forum-Opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.18,000/- charged towards its price along with compensation of Rs.3,000/-Appeal-Argument that the AC manufactured by Onida company and the appellant merely worked as their service centre not accepted-Complaints attended by the appellant promising to replace the defective unit-Moreover, it represented the company, being its service centre-No reason to differ from the view taken by the Forum below-Appeal dismissed in limine.” <br /> <br /> The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a social and benevolent legislation, intended to protect the better interest of the consumers. The complainant here in being consumer under the definition of the said Act, his interest deserves to be protected by allowing his complaint. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.25,500/- to the complainant. <br /> 7. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant is entitled Rs.1,000/- as cost of the present proceedings from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 4 weeks from the date of this order. The opposite parties are directed to send the amount as ordered above to the complainant by way of DD/ cheque with intimation to this Forum. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings <br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> <br />