DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President
: Smt. Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member
Date of filing: 29/09/2022
CC/183/2023
Unnikrishnan - Complainant
S/o E P Kuttan Menon
Residing at Radha Nivas
Kadambazhipuram
Palakkad 678 101 (By Adv. Ullas Sudhakaran)
V/s
Sanal Kumar V K - Opposite Party
Proprietor, United Services
Sreekrishna Tower, Palakkad Road
Kalladipotta P O
Pattambi
Palakkad - 679 313.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
Prepared by Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a One Tonne Lloyd split Air Conditioner from Kochukudiyil Agenceis, Ottappalam. After using it for few years he found that the cooling effect of the product was considerably reduced. He booked a complaint with the dealer and they informed that it would be forwarded to their authorised service centre.
On 13/04/22, the service personnel visited the house, but without carrying out any repair he charged Rs 370 towards visiting charge. On 18/04/22, the technician again visited and identified the issue of Gas Leak. He dismantled the Indoor as well as outdoor units and took it to their service centre for repair and charged Rs 2000/- as advance towards repair.
There was inordinate delay on their part in carrying out the repairs and fixing the problem. On 02/06/22, the technician brought back the unit claiming that all the required repairs are carried out and fit for use. He fixed the units and charged Rs 9500/- towards repairs and 6 months warranty was also given by the Opposite Party.
After installing the AC, it could not be operated with the remote control and the technician asked the complainant to change the battery of the remote. Even after changing, the AC could not be operated. On 7/6/22, the technicians came to the Complainant’s residence and tried to operate the system with new remote; but it did not work even with the new remote. They opened the AC and removed the PCB and informed that the problem may be with the printed circuit board and it need to be taken to the service centre for repair.
The Opposite Party did not rectify the defect and on enquiry they informed that the PCB is defective and more amount need to be spend by the complainant for replacing it. Later they stopped responding to complainant’s calls.
The Opposite Party did not properly carry out service and repair of the AC and misrepresented the complainant that it is properly repaired and charged an amount of Rs 9870/-
Complainant had caused to issue a Lawyer notice to the opposite party asking him to make the AC functional by fixing the PCB taken out and to pay Rs 2500/- towards notice charges. Even after receiving the notice, the opposite party did not reply or act as per the direction. The acts of the opposite party amounts to Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice.
So the complainant approached the Commission.
(1). To direct the opposite party to undertake proper repairs and service to complainant’s AC and to make it functional and to install it in complainant’s house.
(2). To pay Rs 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
(3). To Pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost of the litigation and such other incidental reliefs which the Commission finds fit and proper to grant.
2. Even after receiving notice, the opposite party did not appear or file
version. So the opposite party’s name called in open Court and was set
exparte.
- Complaint filed IA 39/23 for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner to inspect the AC. It was allowed and the expert filed report which is marked as Ext C1. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1-A6 marked.
- Complainant’s grievance pertains to the defects in the Air conditioner by brand name Llyod purchased from Kochukudiyil Agencies. Complaint registered with the dealer was forwarded to the opposite party, their authorized service centre. They visited the complainant’s residence 2-3 times. First they identified the problem of Gas leakage and dismantled the AC and took it to their service centre for fixing the problem. Even after service, it could not be used. On informing the opposite party, the service personnel came and removed the printed circuit board. They opined that the problem may be with the PCB and it has to be taken to the service centre for repair. Later the opposite party informed that the PCB is defective and more amount need to be spend by the complainant for replacing it. Thereafter they stopped responding to complainant’s calls. They have charged total amount of Rs 11,870/- for service and repairs.
- Ext A1 is the Tax invoice dated 4/4/2016 issued by Kochukudiyil Agencies for the purchase of LLOYD AC ITON LS 13A5X and V GUARD STB VG 400. From this the price of the AC+Stabilizer is Rs 29,000/- . Exts A2 to A4 are the invoices issued by the opposite party towards service charges. Ext A2 dated 13/04/22 shows ‘visiting charge’ Rs 370. Ext A3 dated 18/04/22 shows Gas Leak service Advance bill of Rs 2,000/- Ext A4 dated 02/06/22 shows Rs 9500/- towards service charge. So the opposite party had charged a total of Rs 11,870 towards service charge. According to the complainant even after charging this amount, they did not rectify the defects in the AC and make it in working condition.
- Expert Commissioner in his report which is marked as Ext C1, reported that the AC did not work when it is switched on. Then he examined the indoor unit after dismantling it and found that the Printed Circuit Board is missing and without this the AC will not work. On enquiry, the complainant informed him that the service engineer of the opposite party had taken it for repair. Then he checked the outdoor unit and found that there is no coolant gas in the compressor. Since there is no gas, the AC will not give cooling effect even if the PCB is fixed.
- From Ext C1 it is clear that, the opposite party did not fix the PCB taken for repairs and did not resolve the issues in the AC even after receiving a service charge of Rs 11,870/- It is a clear Deficiency in Service on their part. The complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the acts of the opposite party and they are bound to compensate the complainant for that.
- The opposite party did not appear or file version and remained ex-parte. The complainant has succeeded in proving his case with cogent evidence. In the result, the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite party,
(1). To undertake proper repairs and service of the AC and make it functional to the satisfaction of the complainant and fix it in the residential house of the complainant.
(2).We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs 25,000/- for their Deficiency in service Rs 15,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs 10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/- as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 26th day of September, 2023.
Vinay Menon V
President
Vidya.A
Member
