DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 19th day of October 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 20/04/2021
CC/80/2021
Bharadhwaj.C.N - Complainant
S/o Neelakantan, Residing at 10/102,
Sreyas, Vaniya Lane, Behind Durga Devi Temple,
Chittur Village,
Chittur (P.O),
Palakkad Dist,
Pin – 678 101.
(By Adv. G.Aravindan)
V/s
- The Proprietor, Das Agencies.,
7/10(1), College Road, Palakkad,
Pin – 678 001.
2. The Managing Director,
Haier Appliances (India)Pvt. Ltd., - Opposite parties
Building No: 1,
Okhala Industrial Estate, Phase –III,
New Delhi, Pin – 110 020.
(Both OPs Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a 1.5 tone Inverter Air Conditioner and accessories ie Haier ACHS18C, NCB3B INVID, Haier ACHO 183B INVOD and a V-Guard Stabilizer from the opposite party for a total amount of Rs.34,000/-. The goods purchased were delivered by the staff of 1st opposite party at the residence of the complainant on 27/07/2020. They installed the product and conducted a trial wherein it was noticed by the staff that there is some patent defect. They assured that it will be cleared soon.
The product was not functioning properly from the time of installation itself. The complainant had complained about the non functioning of the Air conditioner to the 2nd OP. The staff of 2nd OP confirmed that there is patent material defect in the manufacturing of the product and assured that it will be replaced. The complainant lodged many complaints with the opposite parties for the redressal of his grievance, but the opposite parties did not respond positively. The complainant suffered mental agony due to the acts of the opposite parties as the product could not serve the purpose for which it was bought.
The complainant caused issuance of a Lawyer notice on 16/02/2021 demanding a compensation of Rs.1 lakh and the entire purchase amount. Even after the receipt of notice, they did not care to respond. At the same time, the technical staff of the opposite party came to the complainant’s residence and uninstalled the Air conditioner and kept it there. The complainant approached this Commission for
- Directing the opposite parties to refund the value of the product amounting to Rs.34,000/- with 12% interest from 25/07/2020 till realisation.
- To pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation, to pay the cost of the litigation and such other reliefs which the Forum deems fit and proper to grant.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. OP1 did not appear even after receipt of notice and they were set ex-parte. Complainant produced e-mail id of OP2 and notice was sent through e-mail. The e-mail was delivered. But they did not appear and were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed IA386/23 for appointment of an expert Commissioner along with panel of experts and it was allowed. Expert Commissioner filed interim report. As per that the disputed product was in packed condition and for finding out the defects, the system has to be installed and then testing has to be carried out. The expert commissioner sought the assistance of a service person from the opposite party or some other skilled person for further examination. It was allowed and the expert commissioner carried out inspection with the assistance of an expert technician and filed Commission Report. The report is marked as Ext C1.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1– A5 marked. Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice dated 25/07/2020 issued by the 1st OP showing the purchase of the product for an amount of Rs.34,000/-. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by 1st OP for the payment towards the Invoice. Ext.A3 is the ‘ HAIER 12 year’ Warranty Certificate issued by 2nd opposite party showing one year comprehensive warranty + 11 year warranty on compressor. Ext.A4 is the Lawyer notice issued by the counsel for the complainant to the opposite party and Ext.A5 is the printout copies of the messages from the 2nd OP.
5. Complainant in his affidavit has stated that the Air Conditioner purchased from the 1st opposite party was installed by their staff of the opposite party on 21st July 2020. He did not use the product for one month as it was Monsoon season. When he started using the product during last week of August, it was not functioning properly and the cooling effect was very low. He lodged a complaint with the opposite parties on 2nd September and a technician of the opposite party identified the issue as potential leakage and told that the problem will be resolved in a couple of days.
Later on, the technicians came with required accessories to fix the gas leakage issue and the gas was changed and told that it would function properly.
6. But the problem persisted and he again raised the issue with 2nd OP. The technicians took the product to their workshop and returned in October assuring that the problem is resolved. But again the problem persisted and he contacted many officials of the opposite parties. Finally on February 2021, he sent a legal notice to the opposite parties. But there was no response from their side. In the month of March 2021, a technician of the opposite party came and uninstalled the product and kept in a box. There after they did not do anything to solve the issue.
7. From Ext.A3 Warranty certificate issued by 2nd OP, the product has 1 year comprehensive warranty. So the problems in the product started during the warranty period itself.
8. Inorder to prove the defects in the product, the complainant filed an application for the appointment of an expert commissioner and it was allowed. The Commissioner in his first report stated that the “disputed product was in packed condition and the same had uninstalled and packed by the service engineers of the opposite party.’’ He further stated that inorder to find out the inherent defects, the product has to be installed and he requested the assistance of a service person from the opposite party or some other skilled person and it was allowed.
9. In his final report the commissioner reported that “The testing was carried out with the help of an expert technician in the premises of an air conditioner ware house after evacuating the entire system and charging it with fresh refrigerant for more than ten days. The conclusion is that at present the air conditioner is working satisfactorily and will provide the required cooling.”
10.Complainant filed objection to Commission report stating that the examination of the working condition of the product was not conducted in the presence of the complainant. The expert took the product and kept it in the workshop of a technician and a dealer of the 2nd OP. The expert report is biased and it is solely based on the information given by the technician who is also a dealer of the 2nd OP.
11.The opposite parties did not appear or file their version and were set ex-parte. From the pleadings of the complainant and from the expert commissioner’s report, it is seen that the opposite parties uninstalled the product and kept it in a box and did not do anything afterwards. The product was within the warranty period and the opposite parties are bound to cure the defect or replace it; but they failed to do so.
12. Hence the complainant has made out a prima facie case that the opposite
parties did not cure the defects in the product even after his repeated requests. It is a clear deficiency in service on their part. The complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the acts of the OP and they have to compensate the complainant for that.
- Since the commissioner has reported that the Air Conditioner is now in working condition and will provide required cooling,
The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are directed to install the product in the complainant’s residence within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
(2) The opposite parties are further directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.20,000/- for their deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- 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.250/- as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of October, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/- Vidya.A
Member
