DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of October 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 15/07/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.99/2016)
A.S.Sabu,
S/o Sivester,
Athrasseriyil Veedu,
Rishinaradamangalam,
Kannambra (PO),
Palakkad - Complainant
(Adv.R.Ratheesh)
V/s
1. Proprietor,
Nadilath Electronics,
Chandran Nandilath Group,
Near Thangam Theatre,
Vadakkancherry (PO), Palakkad.
(Adv.P.Valsala)
2. M/s Videocon Industries Ltd,
(Rep.by its Managing Director),
14 KM Stone, Aurangabad-Pathan Road,
Chitegaon, Aurangabad District,
Maharashtra. - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member,
Complainant had purchased one ton Videocon AC from the 1st opposite party on 04.03.2016 which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for an amount Rs.26,335/- inclusive of all taxes. Along with the AC he had also purchased a stabilizer manufactured by Kidson Company. The said AC was installed in the bed room of the complainant’s house on 04.03.2016 by the technicians of the 1st opposite party. But within a few days the Air Conditioner stopped malfunctioning and hence the bed room of the complainant was not cooling properly. There was no difference in temperature at the time of functioning of AC and unbearable heat was felt inside the room. Complainant also states that the Electricity charges has raised uncontrollably.
The complainant had informed the 1st opposite party regarding the complaint on 08.04.2016 over phone and the technicians from the 1st opposite party inspected the complaint and tried to repair it. They informed the complainant that the said defect will be intimated to the 1st opposite party and they will take necessary steps for the repair. But no effective measures were taken from the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complainant registered a complaint before the 2nd opposite party on 20.04.2016 alleging that there was no sufficient cooling effect in the AC, which he had purchased from the 1st opposite party. Based on the complaint, the technician of the 2nd opposite party visited the premises of the complainant where he had installed the AC. The complainant alleges that those technicians also could not repair the AC. There after different technicians of the 1st opposite party had tried to repair the AC on different dates without any success. In the mean while, the complainant had also registered a complaint with franchisee of the 2nd opposite party at Palakkad on 20.04.2016 and the technician of the 2nd opposite party also could not repair the AC and has returned without repairing. Complainant further states that the 1st opposite party had not considered his complaint as a consumer and neither care to repair or replace his AC, which amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant further states that the 2nd opposite party being a reputed company might have manufactured good quality products and he had purchased the above AC on that belief. Since he had several ailments he could not tolerate severe hot during summer and had purchased the AC for the above purpose. The opposite parties are not willing to repair the AC or to replace the same even during the warranty period of the product. The complainant had suffered mental and physical strain during summer season due to the non functioning of the above AC. Hence, he had approached before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to repair the defective AC or to replace the above and in case if it is beyond repair, to grant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the physical, mental and financial hardship suffered by him along with cost of this proceedings.
The opposite parties entered appearance upon notice from the Forum and filed their respective versions.
Both the opposite parties states that the above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts on record. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with a dishonest intention to make wrongful gain and to cause monetary loss to the opposite parties. The opposite parties admit that the complainant had purchased one ton Videocon AC from the 1st opposite party on 04.03.2016. The opposite party stated that based on the complaint registered by the complainant alleging that there was no sufficient cooling effect in the AC, the technician of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and did not find any other manufacturing defects as alleged by the complainant. It was further submitted that the technician of the opposite party upon inspection of the product, found that the complainant purchased a one ton AC from the opposite party, which was installed in a big room, for which one ton AC was not at all sufficient for providing enough cooling. It was also further submitted that 1.5 ton AC is required to be installed in the room for getting enough cooling effect. This fact was informed by the technician to the complainant, but he was not willing to listen and was demanding that the AC is not working properly and wanted replacement of the product. The allegation of non functioning of the AC if false and hence denied by the opposite parties. The technician visited the premises upon the complaint registered by the complainant as and when required and had advised the complainant to buy a 1.5 ton AC and also make a false ceiling to the roof, so that the room will have enough cooling effect. But the complainant was very much adamant, and was not listening to the technician, and finding fault with the product and demanding replacement or refund of the purchase money, for better reasons known to the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties did not repair or replace the defective AC was totally false and denied by the opposite parties. The cooling effect in the room was very low, due to the fact, that the installed AC’s capacity was very low while considering rooms space, and not sufficient to provide enough cooling effect. There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Further the amount of compensation being claimed is Rs.1,00,000/- which is by no strech of imagination proportionate to the so called compensation. The complaint is filed without any basis and as such it is liable to be dismissed as “vexatious” or ‘frivolous’ complaint.
Complainant filed application as IA No.471/2016 to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect about the functioning of AC. The application was allowed and an expert commissioner was appointed to examine the AC and to file a detail report. The commissioner inspected the above AC and filed a detailed report. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite parties did not file any proof affidavits. Exts.A1 to A3 was marked form the side of the complainant. Expert commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues that arises for consideration are.
1.Whether the AC purchased by the complainant is defective or not?
2.Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
3.If so what are the relief and cost?
Issues No.1 , 2 & 3
We have perused the documents and affidavits filed before the Forum. Ext.C1 is the commission report filed by the expert commissioner after inspection of the above AC. He had stated that the said AC is not functioning when turned on even after one hour of his inspection inspite of adequate supply of voltage. He had also noticed that in another bed rooms of the complainant’s house there were Air Conditioners functioning which was of less capacity and more spacious area. Hence the contentions of the opposite party that the AC had no cooling effect due to the larger area cannot hold good and is not believable. According to the expert, the above AC is defective and had to be replaced. The opposite parties had not filed any objections to the said report also. In the light of the above submission of the expert we are of the view that the AC supplied to the complainant is defective and had to be replaced. Hence, the complaint is allowed and we direct the 2nd opposite party to replace the air conditioner purchased from the 1st opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this order. If the same is not replaced with in the specified period, the 2nd opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.26,335/- (Rupees twenty six thousand three hundred and thirty five only) being the cost of the above AC. We also direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and physical difficulties suffered by the complainant along with Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as cost of this proceedings.
The afore said amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to realize interest at the rate of 9% p.a for the afore said amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of October 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Photo copy of cash bill received by the complainant for purchase of AC and
Stabilizer from the 1st opposite party dated.04.03.2016 invoice No. 956
Ext.A2 – Photo copy of warranty card received along with AC
Ext.A3 – Photo copy of owners mannual received for the purchase of Kidson stabilizer
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commission Report
Ext.C1 - Expert Commissioners Report
Cost
Rs.4,000/-
