DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 16/06/2018
CC/78/2018
Premalatha C R., - Complainant
W/o. K.P Ayyappan,
Archana Nivas, Adithya Nagar,
Thottakkara P.O, Ottapalam, Palakkad- 679 102
(By Adv. K.Dhananjayan)
Vs
1.Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd.,
Pirojsha nagar, Vikhroli
Mumbai-400 079
Represented by its Managing Director.
2.The Manager, Branch Office (South Zone) - Opposite Parties
Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd.
South Kalamassery, CUSAT P. O.,Ernakulam -682 022.
3.M/s. Melco, The Electrical and Home World
Near Valluvanad Hospital, Kanniyampuram,
Ottappalam, Palakkad-679 104.
Represented by its Proprietor.
4. The Manger, A ONE TRADE LINKS
Pattambi Road, Near Sanjeevani Hospital,
Kulappully, Shoranure-2, Palakkad.
5. The Manager, 4 One Trade Links,
23/296, Mercy College Road, Othungode
Palakkad-678 004.
(Ops.1 & 2 By Adv.N. V. Peethambaran)
(OPs 3,4 & 5 Ex parte)
O R D E R
By Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant purchased a wall mounted split Air Conditioner (Godrej Air Conditioner 12 FG 6 ROGH) along with its accessories from opposite party No.3 for an amount of Rs.33,500/- vide retail invoice No.3185 on 13.05.2016. The opposite parties offered original manufacture warranty of 2 years from the date of purchase.
a) After installation, the complainant noticed that the cooling quality of the Air Conditioner was unsatisfactory. Immediately complaint was made to 3rd opposite party through their mobile No. 9446727007. The technician of the opposite party 3 checked the cooling quality of the Air Conditioner and realized that the split Air Conditioner supplied by the opposite parties had inherent manufacturing defect. Complainant demanded for replacement of the product, which was not done.
b) After a few days, the technician of the opposite parties did some repair work in the Air Conditioner but still it was not cooling properly. Though the matter was reported to opposite party 3, they did not respond even after a gap of 50 days. Finally on 10.12.2016, the opposite parties sent some technicians and informed that A/C had some manufacturing defects of gas leakage and some major parts of the A/C is to be replaced.
c) After continuous calls to phone No. 9446727007, on 15.12.2016 another technician from opposite party 4 came along with the manager of opposite party 3 and took the A/C to their service centre for “Super Check up”. They returned the A/C to the complainant informing that all defects have been rectified.
d) As the defect persisted, efforts were made by opposite parties 2& 3 to rectify the defect and on 22.11.2017 representative of opposite party 5 took the Air conditioner to their service centre. The technician from opposite party 2 confirmed that the Air Conditioner is having manufacturing defect and demanded Rs.8000/- for repairing the same. This offer was refused by the complainant. Thereafter on 02.01.2018, the opposite party returned the product to the complainant and charged Rs.3000/- as repairing charges.
e) Though all the above happened during the warranty period, the opposite parties never came forward to replace the product as per the warranty terms. Complainant sought for refund of the cost of the A/C or its replacement along with other incidental compensations and cost.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 &2 entered appearance and filed their version on 14.08.2018. Other opposite parties did not enter appearance and hence were set ex-parte.
As per the version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2, all the products manufactured and marketed by them are subjected to strict quality check by Quality Assurance Department and those which meet technical parameters are only passed for sale through different outlets and agencies. The split air conditioner is the latest model of the opposite parties. Without closing the windows and air holes, using such air conditioner may cause overload and due to that complaint may arise. Fluctuation of electricity at the time of using the split Air conditioner without proper stabilizer may cause damage to the parts of the split Air Conditioner.
Air Conditioner is a product which needs regular maintenance and the company is providing two free services for the product as per warranty policy. In the case of the complainant, they are neither using the product regularly nor had they availed free services which will clean the entire machine. Dust accumulation happened on the joints of the pipes and due to high humid condition in Kerala, oxidation happens which will lead to corrosion and there by gas leak. Since the complainant faced repeated complaints the opposite parties have taken an approval to refund the full invoice amount, after usage of one and a half years as a special case for this customer in the month of April and communicated to the customer.
3. Issues Framed
1. Whether the Air conditioner purchased by the complainant is
having manufacturing defect?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on
the party of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?
4. Reliefs, if any extendable.
4. The complainant submitted chief affidavit and marked Exhibits A1-A7 as evidence of her allegations in the complaint. Opposite parties (1) & (2) filed their proof affidavit, but did not mark any document as evidence. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Argument notes were submitted by the complainant.
Issues (1) & (2)
5. From the documents produced before the Commission by the complainant, it is evident that the Air Conditioner was showing complaints immediately after purchase. It is clear from the documents marked as Exhibit A2-A7 that the product had to be taken for repair/servicing several times from 16.12.2016 onwards. The Exhibit A2- dated 16.12.2016 shows that the Air conditioner was having gas leak.
Further, in para 5 of the version filed by the opposite parties, it has been specifically admitted that the Air Conditioner was having repeated complaints and hence were ready to replace it. It is also pertinent to note that all these problems of the Air Conditioner were within the warranty period of the product and could not be cured eventhough the service personnel attempted to rectify them.
Hence it is to be concluded that the Air conditioner was having manufacturing defect which amounts to deficiency in service.
Issues 3 & 4
The above facts reveal that the complainant was put to lot of hardship and mental agony due to the continuous problems with the product purchased which could not be rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant in spite of the interference from various levels of service personnel of opposite parties.
Hence the following reliefs are ordered
1. The opposite parties shall replace the Air Conditioner if the
complainant is willing or refund the full invoice value of split Air
Conditioner and accessories along with interest @ 9% from the date
of invoice till the date of payment.
2. To refund the amount of Rs.3000/- collected from the complainant as
service charges along with interest @ 9% from the date of collection till
the date of payment.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardships
faced by the complainant.
4. To pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)towards litigation
charges.
The opposite parties are to comply with above order jointly and severally with in a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties shall pay a solatium of 250/- per month or part thereof from the date of this order till full and final settlement of the amounts ordered above.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of August, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/- Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1–Invoice no.3185 dated 13.05.2016 issued by opposite party 3 in the name
of the complainant.
Ext. A2– Owners manual cum warranty card dated 13.05.2016 issued by opposite
party 3.
Ext. A3–Delivery not Sl.No.323 dated 16.12.2016 issued by opposite party 4.
Ext. A4–Delivery note Sl.No.364 dated 06.02.2017 job card issued by opposite
Party 5.
Ext. A5– Delivery note Sl.No.217 dated 25.11.2017 issued by opposite party 5.
Ext. A6– Cash Receipt Sl.No.749 dated 02.01.2018 issued by opposite party 5.
Ext. A7– Service slip no.4951 issued by Godrej smart card dated 02.01.2018.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- The complainant was cross examined as
PW1
Cost: 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only).
