Date of filing : 04.09.2017
Date of order : 10.02.2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
FRIDAY THE10thDAY OFFEBRUARY 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 17/2017
Thiru. Raju,
S/o. Munusamy,
No. 501, Manickkam Naicker Street,
Virudhampattu,
Vellore, 632 006,
Tamil Nadu. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
Palaniappa Digital Shoppe,
No.36, R.P.M. Street, Sankaranpalayam,
Vellore - 632 001.
2. The Manager,
Crystal Air System,
No.19/22, Post Office Road,
Krishna Nagar,
Vellore - 632 001
3.The Manager,
Register Office, LG Electronics India Pvt., Ltd.,
A” Wing, 3rd Floor, D3, District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi -110 017.
4.The Regional Manager,
LG Electronics India Pvt., Ltd.,
No. A.A11 Fathima Towers, 1st& 2nd Floor,
2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai 600 040.
5. The Corporate Manager,
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 32, Corporate Avenue,
No. B/4 Floor, Mahakali Caves Road,
Radha Krishna Nagar, Aghadi Nagar,
Andheri East, Andheri, Maharastra- 400 093. ...Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. J. Sridharan
Counsel for first and third opposite parties : Set exparte on 27.12.2017
Counsel for second and fourth opposite parties : Thiru. G. Kalaimani
Fifth opposite party : Dismissed on 10.06.2022
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties 1 to 5 to return the money of Rs.32,800.00 (RupeesThirty-Two Thousand and Eighty Hundred Only) along with 24% interest per annum from 17-03-2017 to the complainant within prescribed time and the opposite parties to pay a compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum form the date of purchase of the air conditioner i.e. 17-03-2017 as the complainant for the deficiency of services render by the opposite parties sustained severe mental agony, inconvenience and ill health and the opposite parties to pay a damage for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) due to the mental agony and worries suffered by the complainant for the deficiency of service render by the opposite party and the opposite parties to pay a cost of this proceedings to the complainant.
1.The Case of the complaint isbriefly as follows:
The complainant purchased a Split AC from the first opposite party. Which was manufactured by the opposite parties 3 to 5. The second opposite party is the authorised service centre. The said product was 10 years of warranty. The said AC was installed in the complainant house on 19.03.2017 within one month of the installation of the aforesaid Split Ac did not work properly. Therefore, the complainant registered a complaint on 30.05.2017 with the opposite party. But the opposite party came to the complainant premises they took the machine the second opposite party service centre. Where after instruction of the said machine they inform that there was a gas leakage problem and the same will be rectified by them. Later on another person from the second party told that there was evaporative problem in the machine. In the very same service centre two different opinions. The second opposite party send a letter to the complainant dated 21.06.2017, stating that there was leak in the flare nut which connect indoor and outdoor unit and they further stating that they have wrongly mentioned that there is a gas leakage and evaporative problem. Further in that letter they have wrongly mentioned in the serial number of the Air-conditions of the complainant. Thereafter they inform that there was a mistake in typing in their letter. But, the second opposite party did not rectify the aforesaid machinery upto the working conditions. Further, till date they have not handed over the aforesaid Ac machine to the complainant. Infact, the complainant was cheated by the first and second opposite parties. Since, the complainant purchased the aforesaid Ac machine believing the third opposite party brand will work properly. But, the opposite party did not rectify the repair in the Ac machine despite the warranty is in force. The opposite parties 3 to 5 are the consenting parties for sale and service by the first and second opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties attitude is not only violating the provisions of law of contract but also amount to gross deficiency of service towards the Consumer attracting penal provisions under the Consumers Protection Act. Hence, the complainant estimates a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service render by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties dated 30.07.2017 to the opposite parties to comply the said demands. The opposite parties are all received the same and failed to reply or comply the demand mad by the complainant herein. Therefore, the opposite parties jointly or severally liable to replace the aforesaid Ac machine with new one. Further the mental agony to the complainant. Hence this compliant.
2. The written version of second and fourth opposite parties are as follows:
The opposite party submit that the averments made in para 1 of the complaint that the complainant purchased the LG Split Ac from the first opposite party namely “The Manager, Palaniyappa Digital Shoppe,Sankaranpalayam, Vellore – 632 001 on 17.03.2017 in Invoice No.1838, in Mode No. JS-Q18PWXA AMLG and Serial S.No. 702AQE065492 for a sum of Rs.32,800/- is not aware of this opposite party”. Hence, this opposite party is no way responsible for the purchase of the L.G. Split AC mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. Instead of that this opposite party ready and willing to attend the service as a authorised service centre of LG company accepted the service and find out the problem that there is some Gas leakage problem and evaporate problem inthe AC set. Subsequently they informed their findings to the complainant through their letter in detail that there was leak which was only in the Flare nut which connects the indoor and outdoor of the AC machine. All the above said problems are connected one and the same fault only. Hence, this opposite party at the first time told the complainant that there was some gas leakage and evaporate problem. Then after finding all the problems in the service centre they clearly mentioned the above mentioned defects in the AC Machine. They need 2 weeks time for getting the required new spare parts from their company and did theservice. The letter dated 12.06.2017 sent by this opposite party for the taking of delivery purpose to the complainant was not mentioned any wrong facts as mentioned in the complaint. But the complainant withsome illegal intention failed to take delivery of the AC set and the contact the Area Service Manager and Area Branch Manager for demanding of a new set. The same was unable to accept by the company. The second remainder letter by this opposite party send to the complainant dated 21.06.2017 for taking delivery of the AC set from their service centre also not completed by him with the illegal and unlawful intention of filing this false case as against this opposite party others which is against law. There is no need or necessity for him or his company to colluded mentioned in the complaint regarding the above said fact is not submit that this opposite party or his company never cheated the complainant to take steps as against the first opposite party for the purchase of the said Ac set. In any event the complainant clearly admits that it was installed by LG company authorised persons or this opposite parties service mechanics. As per the complaint the said AC was installed by the persons of the first opposite party and it was functioning in a proper manner without any problems. The same will prove that the fault occurs was happened due to operation fault of the complainant side. Thereafter the complainant contacted this opposite party on the online message and this opposite party attended the complainant as per law of his company and did the eservice as required for the AC machine and after finishing the proper service this opposite party sent letter dated 12.06.2017to the complainant for taking of delivery for the said Ac set, but with some ulterior motive and intention the complainant neither visit to the opposite parties service centre or failed take any steps for delivery purpose. This opposite party sent several intimations for the delivery purpose of the Ac set to the complainant and all the steps were ended in vain. But the complainant approached the Area Service Manager, the area Branch Manager and the Regional manager for LG company for replacement of a new AC set and the said demand of the complainant was not accepted by the said authorities for the reasons that as per the terms and conditions of this company. There is not chance for replacement of any new Ac set to the complainant and they are obliged to replace the new spare parts and attended the service at full of free of cost through their authorised service centres and they did the same in proper manner. Hence, this opposite party is no way responsible persons for the demands claimed by the complainant. The above facts and circumstances it is very clear that there is no deficiency of service, carelessness or negligence on the side of this opposite party his company authorities. Therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. On receipt of the notice from this Hon’ble Commission. First and third opposite parties did not appear. The opposite parties called absent set exparte.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. Proof affidavit of second opposite party filed. Ex.B1 marked. Proof affidavit of fourth opposite party not filed. Documents not filed. Written argument of complainant filed. Written argument of second opposite party filed. Fourth opposite party written argument not filed. Second and fourth opposite parties sides oral argument heard.
5. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NOS. 1 & 2:
The complainant purchased a Split AC from the first opposite party. Which was manufactured by the opposite parties 3 to 5. The second opposite party is the authorised service centre. The said product having 10 years of warranty. The said AC was installed in the complainant house on 19.03.2017. Within one month from the date of installation of the aforesaid Split Ac did not work properly. Therefore, the complainant registered a complaint on 30.05.2017 with the opposite party. The opposite party came to the complainant premises then they took the machine to the second opposite party service centre. Where after inspection of the said machine they informed that there was a gas leakage problem and the same will be rectified by them. Later on another person from the second opposite party told that there was evaporative problem in the machine. In the very same service centre two different opinions given. The second opposite partysend a letter to the complainant dated 21.06.2017, stating that there was leak in the flare nut which connect indoor and outdoor unit and they further stating that they have wrongly mentioned that there is a gas leakage and evaporative problem. Further in that letter they have wrongly mentioned in the serial number of the Air-conditions of the complainant. Thereafter they informed that there was a mistake in typing in their letter.But, the second opposite party did not rectify the aforesaid machine upto the working conditions.Further, till date they have not handed over the aforesaid A/c machine to the complainant. Infact, the complainant was cheated by the first and second opposite parties. Since, the complainant purchased the aforesaid A/c machine believing the third opposite party’s brand will work properly. But, the opposite party did not rectify the repair in the Ac machine despite the warranty is in force. Therefore, the opposite parties jointly or severally liable to replace the aforesaid A/c machine with new one. Further this caused mental agony to the complainant,the opposite parties are liable to compensate suitably.
7. The opposite party in their written version denying the allegation of the complainantbut admitting the complainant purchased LG Split A/c from the first opposite party on 17.03.2017 fora sum of Rs.32,800/-. According to the second opposite party,after finding the problem in the A/c unit they need 2 weeks time for getting the required new spare parts from their company and did the services.But, after the servicing the said A/c unit this opposite party informed to the complainant, but the complainant with some illegal intention fail to take delivery of the A/c set, but he contacted to the area Service Manager and area Branch Manager for demanding a new A/c unit and the same was unable to accept by the company.The opposite party again sent second remainder letter on 21.06.2017asking the complainant to take delivery of the A/c unit. For which also there was response from the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint with illegal intention.This opposite party never cheated the complainant by selling the A/c set. In any event, the complainant clearly admit that it was installed by the L.G company authorised persons of this opposite party service centre AC mechanic. As perthe complainant the said AC was installed by the persons of the first opposite party and it was functioning proper manner without any problem.There is no chance for replacement of new any A/c set to the complainant and they are obliged to replace the new spare parts and attended the service at full free of cost. They are authorised service centre and they did same in the proper manner. Hence, this opposite party is no way responsible person for the demands claimed by the complainant. Therefore there is no deficiency of service or carelessness negligence on the side of this opposite party or his companies activities. Accordingly this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. When we go through the Ex.A1 the complainant had purchased the A/C Unit from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.32,800/- and the said A/C unit also having warranty for 12 months and additional warranty of 9 years. The opposite parties also admitthat within a weektimes the said Ac unit was developed problem. Accordingly, it has been handed over to the second opposite party for service. It is undisputed factthat the said AC unit was not return to the complainant till date. Therefore, in our consider opinion that the opposite party is not right in holding the complainant A/c unit under guise of service. Therefore, in our consider opinion that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 5. Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
8. POINT NO.3:
As we decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is adeficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 5.The opposite parties 3 to 5 are jointly or severally directed to refund Rs.32,800/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only) the cost of the Air Conditioner with interest at 9% p.a. from 17.03.2017 to till the date of this order and the opposite parties 3 to 5 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No. 3 is also answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 3 to 5 are jointly or severally directed to refund Rs.32,800/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only) the cost of the Air Conditioner with interest at 9% p.a. from 17.03.2017 to till the date of this order and the opposite parties 3 to 5 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within Two month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization. As against the first and second opposite parties this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10th February,2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-17.03.2017 – Copy of AC purpose bill
Ex.A2-21.06.2017 –Letter issued by the second opposite party
Ex.A3-30.07.2017 –Office of the legal notice along with postal receipt
Ex.A4 - First opposite party served postal acknowledgement
Ex.A5 - Second opposite party served postal acknowledgement
Ex.A6 - Fifth opposite party served postal acknowledgement
Ex.A7 - Fourth opposite party returned postal cover
Ex.A8 - Copy of the warranty
LIST OF SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1-11.09.2017 – Copy of the reply notice
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
