Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/21/2016

V.Arunmozhiselven - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Electronika sales Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.Venkatramani

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.01.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on: 20.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 20^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.21/2016

 

Mr.V.Arunmozhiselven,

Son of Mr.K.Velu,

No.4, Chakaravarthy Street,

F-2, Kalyan Apartment,

East Tambaram,

Chennai – 600 059.

 

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Electronika Sales Private Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.16, Narasingapuram Street,

(Near Casino Theater & Batta Show Room),

Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002.

 

2.M/s. Daikin Air-Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

12^th Floor, Building No.9,

Tower ‘A’ DLF Cyber City,

DLF Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122 002.

Hariyana (India).

 

 

3.M/s.Amutha & Co.,

Rep. by its Partner,

No.1, Venkatesan Street,

Tambaram West,

Chennai – 600 045.

 

4.M/s. Snow  City Enterprises,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Old Washermanpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 04.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                     : M/s.R.Venkataramani, R.Sudalaiamani

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                :M/s.S.R.Rajagopal, S.R.Raghunathan,

                                                                  V.Anil Kumar

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                : M/s. C.C.Sivakumar & K.Senthil Kumar

 

Counsel for 3^rd  & 4^th Opposite Parties   : Ex - parte

         

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cost of the air-conditioner, installation charges, compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had purchased a Daikin 1.5 ton split air-conditioner from the 3^rd opposite party on 13.05.2015 for a valuable consideration. The 4^th opposite party installed the air-conditioner on the same day. The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer and the 1^st opposite party is the distributors of the Daikin AC.

          2. After two months of installation the air conditioner cooling has been reduced. Hence the complainant booked a complaint on 11.08.2015. A technician from M/s. Jai Air System, Job Card No.685 dated 11.08.2015 has attended the complaint and found that there was some gas leakage in the product. On the instruction of the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party along with technician visited the complainant house on 19.08.2015 inspected the air-conditioner and could not found any gas leakage. However, the 1^st opposite party assured the product will be replaced. The fourth opposite party technician dismantled the air-conditioner of the indoor and outdoor units and till now he is keeping the same. However, the product was not replaced.

          3. The complainant sent several e-mails and also a legal notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party they did not respond. The product was dismantled proves that the same is having manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant filed the complaint to refund the cost of the air-conditioner, installation charges and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is a distributor for the 2^nd opposite party and for several other companies. There is no privity of contract between this opposite party and the complainant. He had purchased the product from 3^rd  opposite party and hence the complaint is not maintainable. This opposite party as a distributor of the 2^nd opposite party regularly supplied the air-conditioner to the 3^rd opposite party. There is no justification in maintaining this complaint against this opposite party. As far as this opposite party concerned the complaint is not maintainable by the complainant as a Consumer and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased Daikin 1.5 ton split air-conditioner from the 3^rd opposite party on 13.05.2015.  The 4^th opposite party installed AC on the same day. The warranty is for a period of one year.  The complainant registered a complaint with this opposite party about the product. He made an arrangement of technician and he visited and he could not found any fault or gas leakage in the unit. However, the complainant was insisting repeatedly for replacement of AC unit even though there was no defect. Considering the customer satisfaction provided a complimentary service and that time it was found a minor leaking in the indoor unit. As a gesture this opposite party agreed to replace the entire indoor unit with new one and also instructed the opposite parties to replace the indoor unit alone. After dismantling the old indoor unit a new unit was taken to the complainant house by the 3^rd  opposite party for replacement, the complainant refused to accept the delivery and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Whatever the advice given to the complainant has not been accepted. There is no manufacturing defect in the unit and hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          6. Though the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties received notice and they remained absent and hence they were set ex- parte on 05.04.2016.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1

          The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the  Daikin AC and the 1^st opposite party is his distributor and the 3^rd opposite party is the dealer. The complainant purchased 1.5 ton Daikin AC on 13.05.2015 from the 3^rd opposite party under Ex.A1 cash bill on payment of Rs.34,000/-. The 4^th opposite party installed the said AC on the same day and he received a sum of Rs.1,850/- under Ex.A2 towards installation and material charges.

          9. After three months of installation the complainant made a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party that there is defect in the product and on his behalf M/s. Jai Air System attended the problem and issued Ex.A3 job card No.685. The technician found there was gas leakage. The said technician also mentioned in Ex.A3 gas leak. The 4^th opposite party dismantled the indoor and outdoor units to check gas leak at his work shop and issued Ex.A4 acknowledgement. After taken the AC the same was not returned to the complainant after rectifying the defects.

          10.  The complainant sent Ex.A5, Ex.A6 & Ex.A11 e-mail to the 2^nd opposite party and also Ex.A7 e-mail to the 1^st opposite party and Ex.A8 legal notice to the opposite parties for replacement and however the AC was not replaced. The case of the 2^nd opposite party is that even though there is no defect in the AC and since insisted by the complainant to replace new one, he had agreed to replace the indoor unit alone and however on delivery of the new unit the complainant refused to accept and also demanded to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- and therefore he had not committed any deficiency in service.

          11. Admittedly after dismantling the unit, the same is in the custody of the 4^th opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party agreed to replace the indoor unit alone. However, the 2^nd opposite party admitted in his written arguments Para 11 that “the defect in the air-conditioner could not rectify since it is a manufacturing defect”. Therefore, this opposite party assured to the complainant that entire air-conditioner will be replaced, as per instruction of the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party categorically admitted that the AC unit sold to the complainant was having manufacturing defect and that is why he had agreed to replace the entire unit. Further, the 2^nd opposite party agreed to replace a new unit on the instructions of the 1^st opposite party and hence this circumstance proves that the 1^st opposite party, distributor also has the knowledge about the manufacturing defect in the product sold to the complainant. Therefore, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties committed deficiency in service in manufacturing and distributing the defective product. The 3^rd opposite party sold the defective product and 4^th opposite party dismantled the product and who is having the custody of the dismantled AC and hence the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties also committed deficiency. Finally, we hold that the opposite parties 1 to 4 have committed deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

          The complainant sought relief of refund of the cost of the product of Rs.34,000/- and also installation charges of Rs.1,850/-. Since the opposite parties sold manufacturing defective product to the complainant, the refund of the cost sought by the complainant is sustainable and therefore the opposite parties 1 to 4 may be directed to pay the above said cost of the product and installation charges to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of dismantling i.e 19.08.2015 to till the date of this order. The complainant purchased the product mainly for the use of his age old mother and therefore due to the use of defective product, the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same the opposite parties can be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4 jointly or severally are  ordered to refund a sum of Rs.35,850/-(Rupees thirty five thousand eight hundred and fifty only) (cost of the product of Rs.34,000/- + cost of installation of Rs.1,850/-) with 9% interest from 19.08.2015 to till the date of this order to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.05.2015                   Cash bill issued by the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A2 dated 13.05.2015                   Work order for Installation issued by the 4^th

                                                   opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 13.05.2015                   Service completion certificate issued by Jai Air

                                                    Systems

 

Ex.A4 dated 19.08.2015                   Acknowledgement issued by the 4^th opposite party

 

Ex.A5 dated 22.09.2015                   E-mail sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite

                                                    Party

 

Ex.A6 dated 30.09.2015                   E-mail sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the

                                                   complainant

 

Ex.A7 dated 29.09.2015                   E-mail sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite

                                                   party

 

Ex.A8 dated 20.10.2015                   Lawyer’s Notice

 

Ex.A9 dated 23.10.2015                   Acknowledgement Card of 1^st, 2^nd opposite parties

 

Ex.A10 dated 29.10.2015                 Returned cover of the 4^th opposite party

 

Ex.A11 dated 05.12.2015                 E-mail sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite

                                                    party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Copy of Warranty Card

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Copy of the Installation Report

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Copy of conversation

 

Ex.B4 dated 26.10.2015                   Returnable Challen

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT