Date of Filing : 06/07/2020
Date of Judgement : 30/05/2023
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Sri Susmit Kumar Nandi against Opposite Party (referred as OP hereinafter) namely M/s. WEBLINE alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
Case of the complainant in short is that he purchased an LG Dual inverter 1.5 ton split air conditioner (referred as AC) on 30.08.2017 on payment of sum of Rs.46,185/-. After expiry of one year warranty of the said AC, it was extended for further two years starting from 01/09/2018 to till 31/08/2020. As cooling effect of the AC was deteriorating, complainant registered complaint in July 2019. On 16/07/2019, technician on inspection detected that preventive service is necessary and thus on 10/08/2019 preventive maintenance service was done, but OP charged Rs.1,200/- which was paid to the said technician. The payment of that service charge was never mentioned in the Job Sheet dt. 16/07/2019. Again, as AC was not giving sufficient cooling effect, complainant registered the complaint, which was attended by the technician on 10/03/2020. He detected that there was leakage in outdoor unit to indoor unit linking functional pipe. Complainant was told that it will be replaced free of cost. But as no step was taken by OP to repair, complainant sent an e-mail and as per version of the company due to country-wide lockdown since 24/03/2020, service request call No. 803774377 could not be executed. Thereafter on 10/06/2020 suddenly technician turned up to do the repair. But after completion of the repairing prepared a cash memo of an amount of Rs.4,780/- and demanded the same from the complainant. Complainant declined to pay the same as it covered under the extended warranty of two years. In the cash memo instead of actual call request being No. 8037743771, service request call No. 8038084863 dt. 10/06/2020 had been mentioned. Since the complainant was forced to pay the said service charge of Rs.4,780/- he paid it through an A/c payee cheque. So the present complaint is filed alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OP, praying for directing the OP to refund Rs.1,200/- and Rs.4,780/- , to pay compensation of Rs.65,780/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,320/-.
OP has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations contending inter-alia that the normal warranty period of one year of the product had started from 30/08/2017 and ended on 30/08/2018. Said limited period of warranty was extended for further two years starting from 01/09/2018 and ended on 31/08/2020. It is the further contention of the OP that several service request calls dt. 18/9/2018, 20/11/2018, 31/5/2019 and 15/09/2019 were received, which was registered repair service ID and all the services were done free of cost. On 10/8/2019 another repair service request call was registered vide service ID No. 8031129467 for pump down services and having knowledge of the same, complainant paid Rs.1,200/- for the said service. It is further contended that service request call No. 8037743771 dt. 6/3/2020 was attended on 10/3/2020 for inspection and it was found that there was a leakage in aluminium pipeline between outdoor unit and indoor unit due to corrosion which was explained to the complainant and the said AC was duly repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, vide repair order No. 8038084863 dt. 5/4/2020, technician of the OP visited the place of the complainant for replacement of substantial copper pipe instead of aluminium pipe and charged Rs.4,780/- as the copper pipe is an external part, is chargeable. So the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the course of evidence, both parties filed their respective examination-in-chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. However, at the time of argument, complainant did not take any step. So argument on behalf of OP has been heard. Even though, BNA has been filed by both parties.
So the following points require determination :-
- Whether there has been any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Both the points are taken up together for discussions in order to avoid repetition.
At the very outset it may be pertinent to point out that it is an admitted fact that the AC in question was under warranty period of one year initially i.e. from 30/08/2017 to till 30/08/2018 and thereafter it was extended for a further period of two years starting from 01/09/2018 to till 31/08/2020. There is no dispute and denial that service request call was made by the complainant which was carried out by the O.P. The dispute in this case is restricted to payment of service charge of Rs.1,200/- and Rs.4,780/- by the complainant to OP during the said period of warranty.
Complainant has filed copy of Job sheet dt. 10/08/2019 and cash memo showing payment of Rs.1,200/- to O.P. On a careful scrutiny of the Job sheet, it appears that only AC machine was checked and service was done. The service was done as there was no cooling effect. Even in the cash memo, there is no mention as to why said amount of Rs.1,200/- was charged. In the cash memo it is only mentioned “LG AC service”. Since the service was done admittedly during the period of warranty, there should not have been any service charge.
OP sought to suggest that it was pump down service of the said AC where indoor and outdoor unit got dismantled from the wall and there was chemical wash. Since chemical is not covered under RCP or warranty, complainant was charged of Rs.1,200/-. But in the document referred to above, filed by the complainant, there is no mention that there was chemical wash or it was pump down service. So, the said contention of the OP about chemical wash appears to be subsequent development and an afterthought.
So far as payment of Rs.4,780/- by the complainant, admittedly inspection was done by OP on 10/3/2020. It is categorically mentioned in the Job sheet dt. 10/3/2020 that outdoor to indoor Aluminum pipe leaking. Complainant has filed e-mail dt. 4/4/2020 sent by him to OP wherein it is categorically mentioned that “An inspection has been done on 10/3/2020 when it has been detected by the technician that in outdoor to indoor Aluminum pipe there is leakage and have taken my consent for the repair to be done, but till date no initiative has been taken for replacing the same with a substantial copper pipe required to be done as per version of the technician”.
It is the specific contention of the OP that as per requirement of the complainant to enhance the cooling effect, Aluminum pipe was replaced by the substantial copper pipe. Since copper pipe is an external part which does not include in fractional spare category for any Air conditioner, same is chargeable. OP has specifically stated that copper pipe was required for filling up the leakage for which the complainant had agreed to pay with full consent. This contention of the OP that complainant was told the requirement of replacing the Aluminum pipe with the copper pipe to enhance the cooling effect finds support from the e-mail dt. 4/4/2020 sent by the complainant to OP. There cannot be any dispute that the copper pipe is an external part. So, if according to the knowledge and consent of the complainant, Aluminum pipe was replaced with copper pipe to connect the indoor unit and outdoor unit, complainant cannot claim at a later stage that charge of Rs.4,780/- by the OP was illegal or against the warranty term. The contention of the OP that copper pipe of the AC is not covered under the plan also finds reflection in the document filed by them. In such a situation, complainant is only entitled to refund of Rs.1,200/- and litigation cost as prayed. But we find no justification to allow any compensation as prayed by the complainant.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/135/2020 is allowed on contest. O.P. is directed to refund Rs.1,200/- to the complainant and pay Rs.3,320/- as litigation cost, within 45 days from this date failing which the amount shall carry interest @8% per annum till realization.
