Haryana

Ambala

CC/280/2022

K.C. Lifestyle Agencies - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saugat Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shivam Jain

01 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	280 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	21.07.2022
Date of decision	:	01.05.2024

K.C. Lifestyle Agencies. H No.88, Manali House, Ambala City through its Prop. Shruti Kumar.

          ……. Complainant

Versus

1. Saugaat Electronics, Main Road, Prem Nagar, Ambala City through its Prop. Rajesh Batra.
2. Rajesh Batra, Prop. of Saugaat Electronics, Main Road, Prem Nagar, Ambala City.
3. Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.-IAPL Group, 2/8, West Patel Nagar, near Metro Station, Opp. Pillar No.192, New Delhi 110008 through its Managing Director.
4. Managing Director of Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. IAPL Group, 2/8, West Patel Nagar, near Metro Station, Opp. Pillar No. 192, New Delhi 110008.

….…. Opposite Parties

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri R.K. Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

                     Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.

                      Defence of OPs No.3 and 4 already struck off.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.34500/- alongwith interest @18% p.a.
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment, alongwith interest @18% p.a.
3. To pay litigation expenses
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.  

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the Proprietor of the complainant-Shruti Kumar is the permanent resident of House No. 88, Manali House, Ambala City and is earning his livelihood by Trading Goods under the name and style of K.C. Lifestyle Agencies, at House No. 88, Manali House, Ambala City. OP No. 3 is the manufacturer of Mitsubishi Heavy Air Conditioner and claimed its product having zero defect and believing the toll claims made by the OP No. 3, the complainant purchased 1.1 Ton Split AC for his personal use bearing Serial No. 822602009/862601692 SRK13CRS-S6/A from the OP No.1 through OP   No. 2 who claimed himself to be authorised Dealer of the OPs No. 3 and 4. The said AC was purchased vide Invoice No. 57 dated 29.04.2018 for Rs. 34,500/-. At the time of purchase of the above mentioned Split AC, the   OPs   No. 1 and 2 assured the complainant that it will run trouble free and also assured as per the Policy of the OPs No.3 and 4 there is a guarantee/warranty of the said AC Unit for a period of five years. After the installation of the AC Unit it was/is not giving proper/effective cooling and this fact was brought to the notice of the  OPs   No. 1 and 2 who sent their serviceman to rectify the defect but inspite of 2/3 visits by the serviceman the defect could not removed/rectified. When this fact was brought to the knowledge of the OPs, they assured that the Service Engineer of the Company will again inspect the AC Unit. However, after a long period on 09 May 2022 the Service Engineer visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the AC Unit and found the defect in the Compressor of the AC Unit and assured the complainant that the Compressor of the AC Unit will be replaced as the same is within the Guarantee period and demanded a sum of Rs.650/- as visiting/service charges which was paid by him. Inspite of the assurance of the OPs No.1 and 2 as well as their Service Engineer the Compressor of the AC Unit of the complainant was neither replaced nor removed, although the same is within the warranty period, as a result of which, the complainant suffering for no fault of him during the peak summer season. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2, appeared and filed written version wherein it was stated that the said A C, Make Mitsubishi Heavy, 1.1 Ton, Split was sold to the complainant on 29.04.2018 for a consideration amount of Rs.34,500.00 including taxes and was in the running condition. The complainant opted out for Stabilizer and also said that he will get the same fitted at his own end and opted out for the same from a trained and qualified technician from MITSUBISHI for this fitting.  First complaint was brought to the notice of OPs No.1 and 2 in 2022 i.e. after completion of more than 04 Years. OPs No.1 and 2 sent technician who found the AC in an open state and was apparent that the complainant has already consulted some private electrician but the AC could not be repaired and thus not working properly. The Technician, at the time of his visit, also found that there was no stabilizer installed on the AC. On thorough Investigations, it was found that the Fan Motor & the Compressor of the AC got badly damaged due to High Voltage which obviously could not be controlled as there was no stabilizer installed on the AC. OPs No.1 and 2  then replaced the Fan Motor and raised a Bill vide No. SE/204/2022-23 dated 23.07.2022 for Rs.4990.00 (Annexure-1) as this part of the AC was not under warranty. Also the compressor was replaced (Free of Cost) and Gas was re-filled and a Bill vide No. SE/203/2022-23, dated 22.07.2022 was raised for Rs.5251.00 (Annexure-2) as the Gas filling charges were also out of warranty period. To utter surprise OPs No.1 and 2, without any intimation and complaint, the complainant gave instructions to their Bankers for STOP PAYMENT of both the above cheques. As per feedback from the complainant that the AC is in good working condition, yet the Bank was instructed for stop payment of both the cheques for the reasons best known to him. This was although very unethical even then OPs No.1 and 2  did not respond to this mis-deed as the complainant is their regular customer and all the sales were closed very gracefully, seamless  and hustle-free services have also been provided to them always. Since the Compressor was within warranty period of 05 years, OPs No.1 and 2  remained in verbal follow-up with M/s IAPL GROUP, the PAN INDIA Distributors and Service Providers for MITSUBISHI AC, from the date when first it came to our notice that Compressor needed to be changed,  for supplying compressor to OPs No.1 and 2 followed by a written communication vide email dated 28.05.2022 and the same was finally dispatched on 19.07.2022 being peak summer season (Annexure-4), which was , received by OPs No.1 and 2 on 21.07.2022. Thereafter, immediately OPs No.1 and 2 sent technician to replace the same. Being Thursday, Whole Sale Cloth market was closed due to their weekly Holiday, so the complainant's premises were closed. Finally the compressor was replaced on 22.07.2022 and AC started working smoothly as per customer's utmost satisfaction. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Despite availing number of opportunities, after putting appearance, when OPs No.3 and 4 did not file written version, their defence was struck of by this Commission vide order dated 16.01.2023.  
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Shruti Kumar, Prop. of KC Lifestyle Agencies, House No.88, Manauli House, Ambala City as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, Proprietor of the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered documents as Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/7 and closed the evidence of the OPs No.1 and 2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by selling the defective AC suffering from inherent manufacturing defect and on the other hand, neither repairing the same nor refunding the amount paid towards the said   AC with defective compressor, the OPs indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 while reiterating the contentions raised in their reply stated that   Fan Motor & the Compressor of the AC got badly damaged due to High Voltage which obviously could not be controlled as there was no stabilizer installed on the AC. OPs No.1 and 2 then replaced the Fan Motor and raised a Bill vide No. SE/204/2022-23, Dated 23.07.2022 for Rs.4990.00 (Annexure-1) as this part of the AC was not under warranty. He further submitted that also the compressor was replaced (Free of Cost) and Gas was re-filled and bill No. SE/203/2022-23, dated 22.07.2022 was raised for Rs.5251.00 (Annexure-2) as the Gas filling charges were also out of warranty period. He further submitted that to utter surprise OPs No.1 and 2, without any intimation and complaint, the complainant gave instructions to their Bankers for STOP PAYMENT of both the above cheques but OPs No.1 and 2 did not take any legal action against the complainant. He further submitted that since the compressor was within warranty period of 05 years, and as soon as the same was available, the same was replaced and now the AC is working OK.  
9.           It may be stated here that since neither purchase of the AC in question by the complainant has been disputed nor the fact that the complaint qua non-cooling of the said AC for the first time in May 2022 was lodged by the complainant with the OPs are in dispute, as such, the only moot  question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not. It is significant to mention here that it is clearly evident from the warranty manual Annexure C-2 of the said AC that it carried a warranty of 1 year on product and 5 years warranty on its compressor. It may be stated here that from the contents of complaint, it is evident that the complainant has raised his grievance qua the compressor only as such, this Commission will refrain from the plea taken by OPs No.1 and 2 qua defective fan motor also. 
10.  As stated above, it is evident from warranty manual Annexure C-2 of the said AC that its compressor carried a warranty of 5 years i.e. uptill 28.04.2023. Though, at the time of filing the complaint on 21.07.2022, the compressor of the AC had not been replaced by the OPs despite the fact that complaint in that regard had been raised/lodged by the complainant in May 2022. In its written version, the OPs have fairly stated that the compressor of the AC has been replaced with a new one only on 22.07.2022 i.e. during pendency of this consumer complaint. The complainant has also not disputed the fact that the defective compressor has been replaced with a new one on 22.07.2022.  In order to writhe out of the situation, OPs No.1 and 2 stated that since the compressor of the AC was out of stock, as such, as and when the same was received by them, it was replaced. This fact is also coming out from the email dated 01.07.2022, Annexure C-7 wherein the OPs have admitted that “…the compressor is out of stock right now and will be available by 17^th of July .Kindly wait till the availability of requested spare part..” In our considered view once the OPs have given warranty of 5 years of the compressor of the said AC, they were legally bound to keep spare compressors in stock and provide new compressor in May 2022 itself, when compressor of the AC in question suffered defect therein. By not keeping the spare compressor in their stock, to meet out the requirement of the consumers, the OPs are negligent and deficient in providing service to the complainant. At the same time it has also been proved that the OPs acted only when the complainant has filed this complaint against them, as they replaced the defective compressor during pendency of this complaint only. Thus, irrespective of the fact that the defective compressor has been replaced with a new one on 22.07.2022, even then the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant, for not honouring their commitments during warranty period.
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-  
    1. To pay Rs.7,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/-, as litigation expenses.

 

It is further directed that OPs shall comply with the aforesaid directions, jointly and severally, within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

  Announced:- 01.05.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President