PER:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is a farmer and for his domestic needs, he purchased one Air Conditioner model LG AC MSQ18CNXA 1 Ton from the OP No. 1 by paying Rs. 35,500/- vide invoice No. G373 dated 2.7.2021 and installed it at his house. The opposite party No. 1 while selling the unit to the complainant assured him that the Air Conditioner is of very good quality and good performance and is for better than other available in the market and told the complainant that the unit is with guarantee and warrantee of 10 years and also warrant of maximum output and cooling. On the assurance and recommendation of the opposite party No. 1 the complainant purchased the unit in question. From the very first day of installation, the complainant experienced the manufacturer defect in the Air Condition unit, as the cooling of the above said AC was not good. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 1 and intimated him regarding the performance of the Air Conditioner Unit and the Opposite Party no. 2 sent its technicians to the residence of the complainant but instead of fixing the defect in the AC they argued with the complainant that the Air Conditioner Unit is working up to mark although their equipment was very much showing defect of lessor cooling, so they went back without satisfying the complainant and further the complainant again requested to repair the above said defective AC Unit but no any response was given by the complainant then the complaint lodged many complaints against the opposite party No. 1 i.e. bearing No. RNP-210730061867 on dated 23.7.2021, RNP-211027047435 dated 27.10.2021, RNP-220605009477 dated 6.5.2022, RNP No. 22090207313 dated 9.2.2022 but inspite of all these complaints the Air Conditioner Unit was not fixed for facts rather the OP No. 2 closed the complaint of the complainant without satisfying him and without rectifying the defect in the AC. The complainant is very much embarrassed due to poor performance of the AC and also due to the noncooperation of the opposite parties and non-rectifying the defect in the AC as such, faced harassment at their hands. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs:-
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to replace the defected AC with a new one on the same model or to refund Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant to purchase it.
- An amount of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges and Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant at the hands of opposite party may be awarded to the complainant
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of Bill invoice No. 373 dated 2.7.2021 Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of Online Payment slip Ex. C-3, Self attested copies of various Online complaints Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-5.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version interlia pleadings that the complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite parties, the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint and same is liable to be dismissed. The complaint involves complex question of law and fact, as such this commission does not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complaint is not in proper form and bad for non joinder of necessary party, the authorized service centre is the necessary party and has been left for reasons better known to the complainant, as such, the complaint merits dismissal on this score only. The complainant was not given any guarantee of any kind. Only warranty obligations were assured as per warranty card given to the complainant which has been mischievously concealed. The product was sold on limited warranty basis and the service engineer of the service centre visited complainant whenever the complaint was lodged and found the produce to the satisfaction of complainant and there remains no problem in the product to be resolved. As per warranty obligations, the complaint was to be lodged with the authorized service centre and not to any other party. There is no inadequate service, unfair trade practice, malfunctioning and harassment as alleged rather the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Akhil Kumar area Service Head L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar Ex. OP1,2/1.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
4 In the present case, it is not disputed that on 2.7.2021 the complainant has purchased one Air Conditioner Model LG AC MSQ18CnXA 1 Ton from the opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 35,500/- vide invoice No. G373 dated 2.7.2021 Ex. C-2. According to complainant, at the time of purchasing the above said Air Conditioner the opposite party assured the complainant that the air conditioner is a very good quality and good performance and is for better than other available in the market and told the complainant that the unit is with guarantee and warranty of 10 years. According to complainant from the first day of installation, the complainant experienced the manufacture defect in the Air Conditioner Unit as the cooling of the above said AC was not good. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 1 and intimated him regarding the performance of the Air Conditioner Unit and the complainant made complaints to the opposite parties several times. On the other hands, the stand of the opposite parties is that the product was sold on limited warranty basis and the service engineer of service centre visited complainant whenever the complaint was lodged and found the product to the satisfaction of complainant and there remains no problem in the product to be resolved. There remains defect in the product from the very beginning. To support his version, the opposite parties have placed on record complainants which have been made by them to the opposite parties Ex. C-4 which shows that there is defect in the AC in question from the very beginning.
5 The expression ‘deficiency’ of services is defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Now Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under: “
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
The quality, standard, purity and potency of the goods have to be considered in the light of definition of the word, “defect”, as given in Section 2 (1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [now Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under:
“(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”
On perusal of above provisions of the Act, it is clear that “defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. Keeping in view the above credentials, the ‘defect’ is to be ascertained and if such a defect occurs in a brand new product, then the onus is upon the manufacturer to prove that it is free from any defect and the defect in the same was not a manufacturing one. The OPs have failed to prove that the defect in the product was not a manufacturing defect.
6 It is admitted fact that the complainant approached to the opposite parties regarding the problem in the AC in question within short time. Moreover, the record shows that the complainant has purchased the AC in question on 2.7.2021 and according to complainant, Air Conditioner become defective from the very beginning and complaint was lodged on 23.7.2021, 27.10.2021, 6.5.2022 and 9.2.2022 within short span of time. It all shows that there is some inherit defect in the AC in question. The perusal of record shows that defect in the product in question occurred in a very short period. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the AC in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
7 The opposite party has taken objection that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as authorized service centre is the necessary party to the present complaint. But the complainant has impleaded L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Company in the present complaint and the complainant has made complaints on the toll free Number of opposite party No. 2 and their service engineer visited the house of complainant as per pleadings in the in the written version, therefore, there is no necessity to implead service centre as party to the present complaint.
8 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to either to replace the AC in question with new one of the same make and model or to refund Rs. 35,000/-. On receiving the above amount, the complainant will hand over the AC in question to the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 3,500/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @9% per annum, on the awarded amount from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
9.11.2023
