STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1]    Varinder Kaur W/o Paramjeet Singh,

2]    Paramjeet Singh,

Both residents of House No.3073, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh

……Appellants/complainants

V e r s u s

1]    Onida, Corporate Office MIRC Electronic Ltd., ONIDA House G-1, M.I.D.C., Maha Kali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093

2]    M/s. Pinky Electronics, SCO No.1113, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Appellant no.2, in person, and on                       behalf of appellant no.1.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants (now appellants) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:-

“Resultantly, in view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed. The same is accordingly allowed partly. The OPs are directed to repair the AC Unit in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, free of charge, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. There is no order as to compensation and costs”. 

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainants purchased a Split Air Conditioner (A.C.) ONIDA 18 TFL, on 22.6.2010, from Opposite Party No.2, for a sum of Rs.22,990/- vide Annexure C-A. The price of the stabilizer and gas pipes/wires etc., was charged extra. According to the complainants, the A.C. was not giving proper cooling, which was reported to Opposite Party No.2 and the Customer Care, whereupon the gas was got filled twice, by the complainants. Thereafter, winter season started. It was stated that when the summer season started, the officials of the Opposite Parties, came for first free service of the A.C. on 22.4.2011. Thereafter, when the AC was put in operation, it was again found that the same was not giving proper cooling. The complainants intimated the Opposite Parties vide e-mails Annexures C-2 to C-5, with regard to the problem, in the A.C. and the difficulty being faced by them. The Engineers of the Opposite Parties came, in the second week of May, 2011 and the gas was again filled in the A.C. It was further stated that inspite of filling the gas, in the A.C., for the third time, the problem could not be rectified, as the cooling was not proper, which fact was reported to the Opposite Parties, on 20.6.2011 vide Annexures C-6 and C-7, with a request to get the defective A.C. replaced, immediately. The Engineers of the Opposite Parties came on 22.6.2011 and checked the A.C. thoroughly, but, all in vain. It was further stated that thereafter, again the complainants sent e-mails vide Ann.C-8 and C-9, on 23.06.2011 and 24.06.2011, respectively, requesting the Opposite Parties, to replace the A.C., but nothing positive came out. It was further stated that, thereafter, telephone calls were made to the Engineers of the Opposite Parties, but they failed to attend to the complaint of the complainants. It was further stated that, again the Engineers of the Opposite Parties, came on 27.6.2011, and opened the internal, as well as external unit of the A.C., but left without re-assembling it. Thereafter, numerous e-mails were sent by the complainants to the Opposite Parties, but they did not replace the A.C. with a new one and instead took the plea that the warranty of the A.C. had expired. A legal notice dated 11.05.2012 vide Annexure C-21, through Registered A.D., receipt of which is Annexure C-22, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but all in vain. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to replace the defective A.C., with a new one, or return the entire amount, spent by the complainants, alongwith interest @18% P.A.; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

3.               Opposite Party No.1, in its written version admitted the sale of the A.C., in question, to the complainants. It was stated that the A.C., carried a warranty from 22.06.2010, for a period of one year. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, did not receive any complaint, whatsoever, from the complainants, till 22.4.2011. The Preventive Maintenance Service (PMS), was carried out by the Engineers of Opposite Party No.1, on 22.4.2011, in which Paramjeet Singh, Complainant no.2, on job sheet Annexure R-1, had duly appended his signatures and recorded that “I am satisfied with product performance and repair done”. It was further stated that, the e-mails were sent by the complainants, to build up a false case. It was further stated that, in a Split Air Conditioner, gas changing is required atleast once a year, when the AC is re-used in the next season. It was further stated that though, gas-changing is a consumable item and not covered under warranty, yet, it was done free-of-cost, for the complainants, on 20.5.2011. It was further stated that, whenever the complainants complained, on the Customer Care helpline, the complaints were duly attended to, on 11.6.2011 and 25.6.2011, and, on each occasion, the A.C. was working satisfactorily. It was further stated that, many a time, the house of the complainants was found locked, when the Engineers of Opposite Party No.1, visited the same. It was denied that any official of Opposite Party No.1, had ever told the complainants, that gas was required to be filled again and it was leaking or that there was any inherent manufacturing defect, in the A.C. It was also denied that any part of the A.C. was ever carried away by the Officials/Engineers of Opposite Party No.1, as there was no requirement to do so, since the A.C. was working perfectly OK. It was further stated that after the expiry of warranty period, on 22.6.2011, gas changing was always done, at the cost of the customers/complainants. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect, in the A.C., and, as such, the question of replacement of the same, did not at all arise. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               Opposite Party No.2, in its short written version, admitted the sale of the A.C., in question, to the complainants. It was stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.               On 09.11.2012, when the complaint was fixed for final arguments, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

6.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.               After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants/complainants, seeking modification of the order impugned.

9.               We have heard appellant no.2, in person, and on behalf of appellant no.1, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

10.            Appellant no.2, in person, submitted that right from the day, the A.C. was purchased, it started giving problems. He further submitted that a number of complaints were made to the Opposite Parties, through emails, that the A.C. was not working properly, but their Engineers/Officials, were not able to rectify the defects therein. He further submitted that even the A.C. was not giving proper cooling, which clearly showed that there were inherent manufacturing defects, in the same. He further submitted that the District Forum, instead of directing the replacement of the A.C., with a new one, only ordered the Opposite Parties, to repair the same, failing which, they were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, deserves to be modified, and the appellants/complainants, are entitled to the relief of replacement of the A.C.

11.            Admittedly the A.C., in question, was purchased by the complainants, on 22.06.2010. There is also, no dispute, about the factum that it carried a warranty for one year. For the first time, on 22.04.2011, the complainants, approached Opposite Party No.1, with some complaint, in the A.C. The Engineers of the Opposite Parties, attended the complaint, on 22.04.2011. The Engineers of the Opposite Parties did the needful, and, thereafter, complainant no.2, signed a note, to the effect that “I am satisfied with product performance and repair done”.  Even under the head-note “Job Status” the words “O.K.” are written. In case, the complaint, made by the complainants, with regard to the problem, in the A.C., was not rectified properly, on 22.04.2011, when the Engineers of the Opposite Parties attended to the same, it could not be expected of complainant no.2, to sign the satisfaction note, extracted above. Complainant No.2, only after being fully satisfied with the repairs, carried out by the Engineers of the Opposite Parties, recorded the satisfaction note, regarding the performance of the A.C., in question, and the repairs, done by them. It means, for a period of about 10 months, from the date of purchase of the A.C., there was no problem, therein. The mere fact that the gas was refilled, twice or thrice, did not mean that the A.C., in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. It was for the complainants, to produce cogent and convincing evidence of an expert, to prove that the A.C. suffered from any inherent manufacturing defect. However, they failed to produce such evidence. The averments, made by the complainants, in the complaint, duly supported by the affidavit of complainant no.2, therefore, could not be said to be sufficient, to prove that the A.C., in question, was suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. Since, the complainants failed to prove that there was any inherent manufacturing defect, in the A.C., they were not entitled to the replacement of the same.  The District Forum, was, thus right, in declining this prayer of the complainants.

12.            The District Forum was also right, in holding that the complainants sent numerous emails to the Opposite Parties, for the rectification of defects, in the A.C. From job sheet dated 22.06.2011 Annexure C-23, it was also proved that the problem of gas leakage, still existed, in the A.C., which was attended to, by the Engineers of the Opposite Parties. Complainant no.2, also appended a note,   on   this document Annexure C-23, with regard to the cooling problem, in the A.C., in question. The District Forum was right, in holding that the A.C. was not working perfectly, on account of persistent problem of gas leakage. It was, under these circumstances, that the District Forum, rightly directed the repair of the A.C., to the satisfaction of the complainants, free-of-charge, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, to pay Rs.10,000/-, to them. The order of the District Forum, with regard to the repair of the A.C., in the facts and circumstances of the case, could be said to be perfectly legal and valid, and is liable to be upheld.

13.            No other point, was urged, by appellant no.2, in person, and on behalf of appellant no.1.      

14.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

20.12.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg