DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Thursday the 29^th day of February 2024

CC.676/2015

Complainant

P.P. Assainar,

S/o. Abdulla,

Residing at Nisha Mansil Payyoli. P. O,

                        Kozhikode.

Opposite Parties

1.               Proprietor,

Blue Bird Air Conditioner Sales and Service,

Perambra Road, Payyoli,

                        Kozhikode.

2.              Managing Director,

MIRC Electronics gl,

MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road,

Antheri (East),

Mumbai – 400093

                        Maharashtra.

   Suppl. 3.   Managing Director,

MIRC Electricals MIDC,

Mahakali Ziad Road,

Antheri East, Mumbai,

                        Maharashtra.

(OP2 By Adv. Sri. Pavithran. K)

ORDER

By Smt. PRIYA. S - MEMBER

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 17/05/2012 the complainant had purchased an air conditioner from the first opposite party, manufactured by the second opposite party, for an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. At the time of purchasing the air conditioner, the first opposite party made the complainant believe that the air conditioner of Onida Company is free from mechanical defects and is one of the moving air conditioner in the market and it provides a warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase. The air conditioner purchased from the first opposite party is not working for the last 6 months. Many complaints lodged before the first and the second opposite parties fell to the deaf ears. The complainant is aged 67 years suffering from severe mental pain and agony by the act of opposite parties one and two. The complainant prays to replace the air conditioner or to get its value of Rs. 25,000/- and to get a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and also for the mental agony sustained by the complainant.

3. The first and the third opposite parties were set ex-parte. The second opposite party has filed written version.
4. According to the second opposite party, MIRC Electronics Ltd. is a duly incorporated company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973. This company is a manufacturer of Onida. All the electronics equipments pass through stringent quality checks and electronic equipments are marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). In the plant all electronic equipments thoroughly inspected with lots of quality checks before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealers, who are appointed on a principal to principal basis for sale of electronic equipments. The customers of all electronics equipments are provided excellent service through a large network around India authorized dealers through so many Onida service centres. All dealers have dedicated helpline for attending any repair or replace spare parts and an all India 24×7 toll free helpline is operational over.
5. The complaint fails on the ground on as there is no cause of action to be raised to file the present complaint against this opposite party. Since the complainant had purchased the Air conditioner from the first opposite party, it is the first opposite party who is the best person to solve the issue.
6. The second opposite party states that the company never gives 3 years warranty for air conditioner. Complainant intentionally did not serve the copy of warranty card and other annexure along with the complaint copy.
7. Another averment made by the complainant is that many complaints lodged before the second opposite party fell to deaf ears. The second opposite party states that the complainant did not lodge even a single complaint before the authorized call centre or authorized service centre. The second opposite party says that the complainant never approached the second opposite party and never registered a single call before the authorized call centre of the second opposite party. The complainant did not write any letter regarding seeking the service from the second opposite party and not even sent a legal notice to them sending the replacement of old air conditioner with a new one. Hence the second opposite party wants to dismiss the complaint with costs.
8. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;                                                                                                                         1) Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?                       2) Reliefs and costs.                 
9. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant and Ext C1 the Expert Commissioner Report.  The second opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
10.  Heard.
11. Point No.1: In order to substantiate the allegation, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the user manual given by the first opposite party to the complainant, Ext A2 is the letter dated 01/04/2015 sent by the second opposite party to the complainant, Ext A3 is the postal receipt of the letter sent to the first opposite party and to the second opposite party by the complainant, Ext A4 is the lawyer notice sent by complainant’s lawyer to the first and the second opposite parties, Ext A5 is the user’s manual signed and sealed by the first opposite party and Ext A6 is the warranty card issued by the first opposite party.
12. The first and the third opposite parties were set ex-parte. Apart from written version no other oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the second opposite party’s side to prove their case.
13. The grievance projected in the complaint is that on 17/05/2012 the complainant has purchased an air conditioner from the first opposite party. At the time of purchasing, the first opposite party made the complainant believe that the air conditioner of Onida Company is free from mechanical defects and is one of the moving air conditioner in the market and it provides a warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase. The air conditioner purchased from the first opposite party is not working for the last 6 months. Many complaints lodged by PW1 before the first and the second opposite parties fell to the deaf ears.
14. Mr. Prasad. C. K., Senior Instructor, Government ITI, Kozhikode was appointed as Expert Commissioner to examine the air conditioner. He filed report which is marked as Ext C1. The conclusion of the Expert Commissioner is as follows;                                     A) The compressor is at fault.                                                                                                                                                                   B) The control device is at fault.                                                                                                                                                               C) The faulty compressor takes high amperage of current.                                                                                                                       D) The electrical switch destroyed due to heavy current flow.                                                                                                                 E) Improper service in guarantee period.
15. The Expert Commissioner Report Ext C1 reveals the entire facts regarding the Air Conditioner. There is no reason to disbelieve Ext C1.
16. The case of the complainant is that product was having a warranty of 3 years. But it does not appear to be correct. Ext A5 clearly reveals that the warranty shall be valid for 12 months. According to the complainant, it was the first opposite party who had informed him that the warranty period is 3 years. There is nothing to indicate that there was any such misrepresentation from the part of the first opposite party. The said contention is not supported by any evidence. The complaint to the air conditioner occurred after the warranty period. Moreover there is absolutely nothing to show that the air conditioner is having any manufacturing defects. The learned expert has not reported that the air conditioner suffers from any inherent manufacturing defect. So the prayer for the replacement of the air conditioner or refund of the price cannot be allowed.
17. At the same time, it may be noted that the air conditioner is having complaints as stated in Ext C1. PW1 has deposed that there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to address his concerns over the product and his request for repair had fallen on deaf ears, even after the issuance of Ext A4 notice. The first opposite party has not turned up to file written version or to contest the case. The third opposite party also chose to remain absent. The contention of the second opposite party is that they have promptly responded to the notice as per Ext A2. In Ext A2 it is stated that the service provider has been instructed to redress the grievance of the complainant and that they are in the process of collecting all the relevant information from the after sales service provider and shall revert back within 15 days. But the second opposite party has no case that there was any follow up action as stated in Ext A2. The evidence in hand shows that there was neglect on the part of the opposite party to repair air conditioner. It amounts to gross deficiency of service. The opposite parties are bound to repair air conditioner of the complainant and to make it in a sound working condition. The complainant is not entitled for free repair of the air conditioner as the warranty period has elapsed. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite party has resulted in mental agony and hardship to the complainant for which, the complainant is required to be compensated.  In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. 
18. Point No. 2: In view of the findings on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;                                                               a) CC 676/2015 is allowed in part.                                                                                                                                                           b) The opposite parties are directed to repair the air conditioner of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition.                The opposite parties can charge for the said repair.                                                                                                                              c) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for                   the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.                                                                                                                                    d) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the                                  complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                        e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29^th day of February, 2024.

Date of Filing: 30/12/2015

              Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

       PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                        MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – User manual given by the first opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.A2 – Letter dated 01/04/2015 sent by the second opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.A3 – Postal receipt of the letter sent to the first opposite party and to the second opposite party by the complainant.

Ext.A4 – Lawyer notice sent by complainant’s lawyer to the first and the second opposite parties. 

Ext.A5 – User’s manual signed and sealed by the first opposite party.

Ext.A6 – Warranty card issued by the first opposite party.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Commission Exhibits

Ext C1  - Expert Commissioner Report.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  P.P. Assainar,(Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties 

Nil.

                                    Sd/-                                                                   Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

                              PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER                                                    MEMBER

                                         True copy,

                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                                         Assistant Registrar