DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 169/2019

Date of Institution: 17.05.2019

Judgment Reserved on: 22.02.2024

Judgment Passed on: 22.02.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

By the present judgement, the Commission is disposing off the Complaint filed by the complainant against OPs for its deficient services and supplying of defective AC.

1. It is the case of the complainant that she has purchased Hitachi, 1.5-ton window, AC, manufactured by OP2 for Rs. 29,500/- from the seller OP1 on 17.05.2016, with warranty of 12 months from the date of installation or 15 months from the date of invoice, whichever occurs earlier and the compressor with warranty for 60 months from the date of invoice. However, after installation of the said AC, the complainant found it to be defective as the AC unit was not functioning properly and there was no cooling. She immediately brought the said issues in the knowledge of OP1 who outrightly refused to offer any solution to the said problem and asked the complainant to directly contact the manufacturer of the of AC OP2 & thereafter the complainant, contacted the customer care of OP2 and after several complaints and follow-ups, ultimately on 03.07.2016, the said AC was replaced by OP2 with another AC. Complainant further submits that even the AC which was originally consigned by OP2, to be installed at complainant’s house, was not the one which was mentioned in the invoice as the serial number written on the AC was different than, what was mentioned in the invoice. When this discrepancy was brought to the knowledge of OP2, she was informed that such thing commonly happens and there is nothing to be worried upon. The representative of OP2 then cut the said entry and wrote another serial number in his own handwriting on the said invoice which raised doubt in the mind of the complainant that she was provided with an old/used and ineffective AC by OP2. Complainant submits that even the replaced AC was also having inherent defects like no cooling and switching of automatically, which defect was brought to the knowledge of OP2 on 16.07.2016 and there after several complaints on various occasions were made on the the official Twitter page of OP2, in expectation of a resolution to the grievances of the complainant but problem with AC not resolved despite being under warranty, nor any suitable action was ever taken by OP2 or OP3. Complainant submits that from March 2017 till April 2017, five complaints were made & only thereafter senior service engineer of OP inspected the said AC on 22.04.2017and after thorough inspection admitted problem with compressor and has marked the observation “No cooling” in the job sheet dated 22.04.2017and also informed that the said AC is not repairable and assured the complainant that he will try to get it replaced but no action was taken. The complainant continued to make the complaints with OP2 from April 2017 but nothing was done to the said AC. Then on 28.08.2018, the representative of OP asked her to supply the copy of the bill to him and the unique number mentioned on the compressor of the AC, which was provided through whatsapp but nothing happened thereafter. On 21.02.2019 OP2 responded which was replied by the complainant vide reply letter dated 27.02.209, however,, no engineer inspected the AC.
2. Complainant further submits that within a short span of 13 days from the date of replacement of AC, various complaints have been made to OP2 and OP3, but nothing has been done despite the service engineer was having the knowledge that the said AC was having an inherent manufacturing defect and that the services of the OP1 is of poor quality and they were deficient in service in rectifying the grievances of the complainant or to replace the faulty AC. Complainant also submitted that OP1 and 2 are responsible for selling defective AC to her and for rendering deficient, negligent, careless services to the complainant, because of which she has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment and financial loss for which she prays for the refund of the price of AC, Rs. 29,500/- and a compensation of two lakh along with the litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- for making complainant suffer.
3. Upon notice, OP1 failed to appear, and as such was proceeded ex parte on 18.10.2021. OP3 was also dropped from the memo of parties by the said order.
4. OP2 has filed its reply stating that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has concealed material facts and the averments made therein are vague, baseless and with malafide intent about  allegations of deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost in favour of the OP2. The purchase of AC is not disputed stating that the same was purchased by the complainant in good and sealed condition after her full satisfaction and the company would repair the same free of cost as per warranty conditions. OP2 submits that it has given all the services as per the warranty policy to the complainant and as per their records they have not received any calls on their customer care registered calls against the issue of the product. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP2. It is further submitted that reply was sent to the notice dated 04.04.2018 of the complainant and submits that whenever complaint was made, they reached to the complainant but complainant on one pretext or the other was not allowing the technician of OP2 to visit the premises and also mentions that no reply was given by the complainant to the said letter. OP further submits that whenever complaint was received, the technicians of OP2 visited the premises and duly checked the said products and found that the product was working fine. However due to heavy usage, replacement of coil was suggested but the customer denied for it and was adamant for the replacement and there is no deficiency of service of defect in the said project.
5. The complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating, contents of her complaint, negating the contentions of the OP2.
6. Both the parties have filed their respective evidences along with documents is support of their cases.
7. The complainant has filed invoice dated 17.05.2016, along with manual, invoice dated 30.06.2016 and consignment note dated 03.07.2016, copy of web call registration dated 16.07.2016 and copy of Twitter page, copy of field call report, copy of emails (date wise dealt in preceding para) and complaint on Twitter, complaint numbers of telephonic complaints dated 28.03.2017, 30.03.2017, 10.04.2017, 17.04.2017, 20.04.2017; copy of complaint dated 08.05.2017, 13.10.2017, 5.12.2017 and 04.04.2018, copy of WhatsApp screenshot, reply dated 21.02.2019 and 27.02.2019.
8. In support of its case, OP2 has filed warranty policy, letter dated 21.02.2019.
9. The commission has perused the documents on record and heard the arguments of both the parties. Invoice dated 17.05.2016 shows that AC 1.5 ton was purchased by the complainant for an amount of Rs.29,500.01/- from OP1 which is not in dispute. Copy of what’s up Chat & screenshot shows the start date of conversation as 20.06.2016 till 02.08.2016, wherein the complaint of the complainant was being dealt with by OP2 and on 18.07.2016, the complainant has specifically mentioned that AC has been replaced but even the replaced AC was not cooling and getting off automatically. This is also noticed that no satisfactory reply to the grievances of the complainant was answered by OP2.  The email dated 24.04.2017, 29.04.2017, 02. 05. 2017, 03.05.2017, 03.05.2017, 04.05.2017, 05.05.2017, attached by the complainant have also mentioned various past dates i.e. 28.03.2017, 30.03.2017, 10.04.2017, 17.04.2017, 20.04.2017, 22.04.2017 drawing attention of the OP towards the defective AC but no action was taken by OP’^s Customer Care service and not even the escalation metrics was provided to the complainant, despite asking the same various times in the above stated emails.
10. The OP2’s contention that complainant’s grievances are duly addressed are not supported by any evidence or documents or any job sheet issued by it. On the contrary, the complainant has established her case by filing the supportive documents / emails/ whats app chat/ twitter page screen shot with respect to the complaint made to the OP2. The Twitter chat attached by the complainant shows that no resolution was provided by the OP2 despite various complaints for continuous 7 days. The complaints dated 08.05.2017, 13.10.2017, 05.12.2017, 04.04.2018, 08.05.2017, about the defect of the AC were not addressed by the OP2 as no response is placed on record by OP2, however, vide its letter dated 21.02.2019, OP2 has written to the complainant, after approximately 10 months, stating  that complainant is not allowing their team to visit for the maintenance of the work required at the complainant end, which contention of OP2 cannot be accepted mainly due to the reason that the same is not corroborated by any job sheet / inspection report or even a visit report to the residence of the complainant and secondly its quite surprising that despite having the problem with the AC and despite making the numerous complaints, why would complainant not respond.This letter itself shows the arbitrary and highhandedness of the OP2 that despite supplying the defective AC at the first instance and again supplying a defective replacement, the OP2 never acted in genuine way and has harassed the complainant since the date of purchase of the AC on 17.05.2016. Approximately after three years, the OP has responded for visiting the team and not for the resolution of the defective AC. The number of complaints within short span of time with respect to the performance of the AC speaks volumes about the condition of AC and establishes that the said AC was suffering from some kind of manufacturing defect which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP1 & OP2. It was never certified either by OP1 or OP2 that the AC that is supplied in replacement is the new and defect free AC. Further, the complainant has not been provided with the bill w.r.t. the replaced AC, which act also in itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.   
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that complainant has suffered a lot due to the supply of the defective AC and further replaced defective item to the complainant who is senior citizen has been struggling for three years and deserve the complete refund of the AC along with interest and compensation for her sufferings for her mental agony and harassment. Considering that the complainant is a senior citizen and at this stage of life she had to suffer for a long duration due to defective AC despite making full payment of the product of her choice and that OP2 had not only plainly refused of receiving of any complaint from the complainant directly or through its customer care but also has made allegations upon the complainant without substantiating them by any evidence and tried to justify its negligence and careless attitude towards its customer, a compensation at the higher side deemed fit to be awarded to the complainant. Commission is also vigilant to the fact that OP1, the seller is also under obligation to provide a defect free product to the customer and to address all the grievances with respect to that product in which duty OP1 and OP2 failed. Though OP1 is running ex-parte but that fact does not exonerate it from its liability. Therefore OP1 and OP2 both are held liable for the deficiency of services on their part and are directed to pay jointly & severally, to the complainant an amount of Rs.29,500/- with interest at the rate @12% from the date of first replacement of the AC, i.e. 03.07.2016 p.a., and compensation of Rs.20,000/-  towards mental agony and harassment suffered by her. Complainant shall handover the AC in question to OP1 & OP2 on receipt of this awarded amount. Litigation cost is not being awarded as the matter is from DSLSA. The above stated amount be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the passing of the order by this Commission, failing which OP1 and OP2  shall pay interest at the rate of @15% per annum on the above stated amount of Rs.29,500/-+ Rs. 20,000/- = Rs. 49,500/- from the date of replacement of the AC, i.e.  03.07.2016 till its realisation by the complainant.

File be consigned to record room after supplying the copy of the order to the parties as per CPA.

Announced on 22.02.2024.