Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/261/2019

Mrs. Kousalya - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Videocon Industries Limited, Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/s V.Meenakshi Sundaram

05 Jun 2023

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 03.10.2019

Date of Reservation       :23.05.2023

Date of Order                :05.06.2023       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                              : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,              :  MEMBER  I 

                  

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.261/2019

THURSDAY,THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE  2023

Mrs. Kousalya,

W/o Mr.K.Raja Venkata Subramanian,
Flat No.14, 3^rd Floor,
Long Beach Apartments,

4^th Sea Ward Road, Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-600 041.                                                            .. Complainant.

- Vs -

1.M/s.Videocon Industries Limited,

   Rep. by its Managing Director,
   Having its Registered Office at,

   Plot No.296, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area Phase 2,

   Gurgaon 122 016.

2.M/s.Girias Adyar,

   Rep. by its Branch Manager,

   Having address at

   No. 151, L.B.Road, Adyar,

   Chennai-600 020.
 

3.M/s.Cool Star Engineers,

   Rep. by its Manager,
   No.4/7, KamarajSalai,

   Ramapuram,
   Chennai-600 089.                                                .. Opposite Parties.

* * * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant      : M/s.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, Adv. Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party   :  Exparte on 04.11.2019

Counsel for 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Parties  :  Exparte on 12.10.2022

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

 

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

(i)  The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,450/- and Rs.1250/- towards the cost of the Air Conditioner and stabilizer and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony suffered and for deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and for expenses.

I.    The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 

1.     The Complainant submitted that she had Purchased a New Videocon 1.0 Ton Split Air Conditioner along with a Stabilizer of Videocon Air conditioner from the 2^nd Opposite Party on 30.12.2018. The Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.25,450/- and Rs.1250/- towards the cost of the Air conditioner and Stabilizer respectively to the 2^nd Opposite Party vide Bill No.GS/ADY/25876 dated 30.12.2018. The Complainant submitted that the 3^rd Opposite Party being the Service provider, installed the said Air Conditioner on 01.01.2019 and a sum of Rs.2500/- has been paid by the Complainant towards the installation charges.

2.     The Complainant further submitted that during the installation, the 3^rd  Opposite Party informed that the Air Conditioner has to be switched on for one hour and accordingly the Complainant has switched the Air conditioner for one hour. After using the said Air Conditioner for few days, she had noticed that there was no cooling effect in the room and tried to contact the First Opposite Party continuously but all the efforts of the Complainant turned in vain. The Complainant had contacted the 3^rd Opposite Party and informed the said problem. However one Mr.Vijayan, employee of the 3^rd Opposite Party refused to take the complaint and after several requests made by the Complainant, the said Mr.Vijayan, agreed to depute their staff to attend the complaint but demanded a sum of Rs.500/- towards the cost of deputing the staff. It is pertinent to note during the subsistence of the warranty period the said problem was occurred, but the 1^st Opposite Party could not be contacted and the third Opposite Party after several requests agreed to attend the problem that too at the cost of the Complainant.

3.     The Complainant further stated that an Engineer from the 3^rd Opposite Party came to the premises of the Complainant and after inspecting the machine, the said engineer informed that there was a leakage of gas from the said machine and the machine has to be taken to the service centre for locating the gas leak and further informed that the having invested such a huge amount towards the cost of purchasing the said Air Conditioner, the Complainant immediately contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party being the dealer of Videocon and informed the condition of the said Aír Conditioner and to address the issue immediately. However there was a delay on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party and therefore the Complainant has no other option except to purchase another Air Conditioner from the 2^nd Opposite Party due to scorching heat prevailed in Chennai City. The 2^nd Opposite Party deputed their personnel and collected the Videocon Air conditioner with full unit including the ducting on 11.05.2019 and delivered the air-conditioner during the second week of June 2019, however the said repair was done without doing gas filling and without any information on the Completion of the repair job. Inspite of attending the repair, the function of the Air-conditioner was not proper as there was low cooling and the complaint was compelled to stop using the Air-conditioner installed in her residence. Again after repeated phone calls from the Complainant, the 2^nd Opposite Party deputed a person to complete the installation including gas fling on 10.06.2019 and the Complainant was constrained to pay a sum of Rs 5000/- once again for installation charges. The Complainant incurred huge expenses towards the repair charges within five months from the date of purchase and even after the repair work done by Opposite Parties, the Air Conditioner is not working properly and hence there is no option except to replace the defective air conditioner by a new one.

4.     The Complainant had taken hectic efforts to contact the customer service of the 1^st Opposite Party for lodging the complaint but all her efforts went in vain. Moreover the 3^rd Opposite Party demanded huge amount under the guise of service charges that too when the machine was covered by warranty. The Complainant and her family were made to suffer and did not receive the cooling facility, which was the top most requirement in the peak months of summer. The Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service and also indulged in unfair trade practice.

5.     The Complainant caused legal notice to the Opposite Parties demanding them to replace the defective Air-conditioner by a new one along with compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment underwent by her and a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the said notice. Inspite of the said legal notice, Opposite Parties neither complied the demand nor sent any reply. Hence the complaint.

 

II. The Opposite Parties are  set ex parte:        

 Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties and was duly served on the  Opposite Parties. Despite the notice being served to the Opposite Parties they failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through Counsel. The Opposite Parties were called absent and  set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

III.   The Complainant has filed her proof affidavit, in support of her claim in the complaint and has filed 5 documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-5. Written argument of Complainant filed.

Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

 

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

 

    3.  To what other relief,  the Complainant is entitled to?

 

POINT NO. 1 :-

 

6.     Upon perusal of Ex.A-1 and 2 it is evident that on 30.12.2018 the Complainant had Purchased a New Videocon 1.0 Ton Split Air Conditioner along with a Stabilizer of Videocon Air conditioner from the 2^nd Opposite Party on payment of a sum of Rs.25,450/-towards the cost of the Air conditioner and Rs.1250/- towards stabilizer to the 2^nd Opposite Party vide Bill No.GS/ADY/25876 dated 30.12.2018.

7.     The contention of the Complainant is that the 3^rd Opposite Party being the Service provider, installed the said Air Conditioner on 01.01.2019 and a sum of Rs.2500/- has been paid by the Complainant towards the installation charges. After installation, the Complainant used the Air Conditioner. In few days, she had noticed that there was no cooling effect in the room and contacted the 3^rd Opposite Party who after several requests agreed to attend the problem and informed that there was a leakage of gas from the said machine and the machine has to be taken to the service centre for locating the gas leak.

8.     Inspite of attending the repair, the function of the Air-conditioner was not proper as there was low cooling and the complaint was compelled to stop using the Air-conditioner installed in her residence. Again after repeated phone calls from the Complainant, the 2^nd Opposite Party deputed a person to complete the installation including gas filling on l0.06.2019 and the Complainant was constrained to pay a sum of Rs 5000/- once again for installation charges. The Complainant incurred huge expenses towards the repair charges within five months from the date of purchase and even after the repair work done by Opposite Parties, the Air Conditioner is not working properly and hence there is no option except to replace the defective air conditioner by a new one.

9.     It is seen from Ex.A-3 to A-5 that the Complainant had issued legal notice dated 20.06.2019 to the Opposite Parties demanding them to replace the defective Air-conditioner by a new one along with compensation. Inspite of the said legal notice served the Opposite Parties neither gave a reply nor replaced the defective Air-Conditioner.

10.    On the discussions made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that within few months from the date of purchase, the Air-Conditioner purchased from the 2^nd Opposite Party started giving trouble of low cooling effect, which could not be rectified ever after repair, which constrained the Complainant to issue legal notice for replacement of the defective Air-Conditioner and for compensation. The Opposite Parties did not bother to give reply to the legal notice issued by the Complainant or to take necessary steps for repair / replacement of the Air Conditioner. As the repairs of the Air-Conditioner and issuance of legal notice occurred within few months from the date of purchase, and as the defects in the Air-Conditioner could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:

11.    As discussed and decided in Point No.1 that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the sum of Rs.25,450/- and Rs.1250/- towards the cost of the Air Conditioner  and stabilizer respectively and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service along with a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards cost of the litigation within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the order till the date of realization. The Complainant is not entitled for any other relief(s). Accordingly the points are answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.25,450/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only) and Rs.1250/- (Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Only) towards the cost of the Air Conditioner and Stabilizer respectively and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the order till the date of realisation.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 5^th June 2023.

 

 

T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                             B.JIJAA

       MEMBER I                                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	30.12.2018	Xerox copy of the Bill voucher issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex.A2	31.12.2018	Xerox copy of Bill No.GS/ADY/25876 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex.A3	20.06.2019	Xerox copy of Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party along with Returned cover
Ex.A4	20.06.2019	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the 2nd Opposite Party along with the AD Card
Ex.A5	20.06.2019	Xerox copy of Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the 3rd Opposite Party along with Returned cover

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

-NIL-

 

T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                             B.JIJAA

       MEMBER I                                                                 PRESIDENT