DATE OF FILING: 23.04.2014
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.05.2017
Dr.Alaka Mishra, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 31.01.2014 the complainant purchased a Voltas Split Air Conditioner 1.5 ton capacity, Model 183 LX (3 stars), bearing ID No. 4551541A13E002170 and OD No. 4511326L11L022829 from the O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.32,000/- bearing retail invoice No. 1837 dated 31.01.2014. The O.P.No.1 also charged extra amount of Rs.1,000/- in the said money receipt towards other charges or fitting charges. The staff of the O.P. installed the said air conditioner in the house of complainant. Due to winter season the air conditioner was of no use of the complainant. The complainant started the said air conditioner on 21.03.2014 at his resident the machine started with ‘’NO COOLING” condition due to winter previously complainant did not operate it. On the same day when the air conditioner not performed to out-blow the cool air, the complainant immediately reported the matter to O.P.No.1 and requested him to exchange/replace an another air conditioner in place of installed one but the said O.P.No.1 refused to exchange/replace and advised to contact the O.P.No.2 for repairing who is the authorized servicing centre. On 21.03.2014, the complainant requested and approached to the O.P.No.2 for maintenance/ repairing of the new and defective air conditioner. On the same day the staff of the O.P.No.2 visited the complainant and observed regarding gas leakage problem vide customer service report No.3063. After two days on 23.03.2014 the staff of the O.P.No.3 again visited the complainant and when opened the outer part of the said air conditioner for repairing the complainant shocked to know that the entire outer parts has been manufactured by aluminum instead of copper. The staff of the O.P.No.2 repaired the said air conditioner on that day vide customer service report No. 3160. Knowing the fact regarding the aluminum production the complainant verified all the cash memos warranty card etc. and found that the serial number of outer part of the air conditioner was an old stock of year 2011. It is also found by the complainant that O.P.No.1 has also issued the 1st free service coupon on the date of purchase. All hopes of the complainant lost like bubals in the water when the complainant came to know upon verification and inquired the matter regarding the old stock of air conditioners outer part. The complainant requested and approached a number of times to O.P.No.1 to replace old outer part of the air conditioner but the O.P. gave his deaf ear and all the requests and approaches gone into vain and last time on 01.04.2014 the OP No.1 bluntly refused to exchange the same. On 01.04.2012 the complainant approached and requested the O.P.No.1 but he misbehaved the complainant and openly threatened with dire consequences that if again complainant shall demand to replace the outer part of the air conditioner stated that the OP company is not going to return/exchange any part of their product once it has sold and you can do as per your wish and pleasure the company does not care for that. The O.P. Company has deliberately committed deficiency of service and harassed the complainant by providing an old stock manufacturing outer part of the air conditioner which will create many problems in future. Alleging deficiency in defect in goods, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps, the complainant prayed to direct he O.Ps to take back the old (2011) defective manufacturing outer part of the air conditioner and provide a new manufacturing outer part of the same model to the complainant along with Rs.90,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment, physical mental pain and financial loss caused and to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 filed written version through his advocate. In the written version, it is stated that all the allegations and averments mentioned in the petition are not true and correct. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same, which are specifically not admitted by the O.P.No.1 hereunder. Regarding para-1 of the complaint petition is not disputed by the O.P.No.1. All the averments and allegations mentioned in para-2 of the petition are false and created by the complainant for the purpose of filing the complaint petition. It is also equally false to say that the O.P.No.1 charged extra amount of Rs.1000/- in the name of other charges besides the money receipt of Rs.32,000/- bearing bill No. 1837 dated 31.1.2014. In this context, the O.P.No.1 submitted that the money receipt of Rs.32,000/- includes Rs.1000/- towards installation charge, which is legible from the original bill. Regarding Para 4 of the petition the averments are not within the knowledge of the O.P.No.1. All the allegations and averments mentioned in Para 5 of the petition are not true. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. In this context the O.P.No.1 submits that it is a general principle of the company that after installation of a product if any defect arose, it is the duty of the purchaser/customer to contact with the O.P.No.2, who is authorized service center for repairing after detecting the real defect of the said product. But it is not within the knowledge of the O.P.No.1 whether the complainant contacted him at any point of time. Regarding the contents in Para 6 of the petition it is not within the knowledge of the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 is merely a sales agent as per the terms and conditions given by the O.P.No.3. Hence, if any defect arises with the product after sale and installation of the product that should be properly detected and resolved by the o.P.No.2 and 3 basing on the complaint of the customer. Regarding Para 8 & 9 all the averments and allegations are totally false and created by the complainant for the purpose of filing the complaint petition. All the averments and allegations mentioned in Para 10 of the petition are not true and correct. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The O.P.N o.1 has got no right to replace or exchange any of the products as claimed by the complainant. All the allegations and averments mentioned in Para 11 of the petition are false and created by the complainant as the O.P.No.1 never misbehaved the complainant or openly threatened him with dire consequences as mentioned in this Para. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Regarding Para 13 of the petition the O.P.No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service or harassed the complainant in any manner what so ever as alleged by the complainant in this Para. All the allegations and averments mentioned in Para 14 and 15 of the petition are totally false and created one and the O.P.No.1 is not liable for any compensation as claimed by the complainant. The O.P.No.1 never committed any deficiency in service against the complainant. In the above facts and circumstances the relief claimed by the complainant is not tenable according to law and therefore the same liable to be dismissed against O.P.No.1 in the interest of justice.
4. Similarly, the O.P.No.2 & 3 filed written version through his advocate. In the version it is stated that the averments made and contentions raised in consumer complaint petition and prayer made there under is devoid of merit, misconceived as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The subject to conditions enumerated under the warranty card, company is providing 12 months warranty over different parts of A.C. from the date of purchase of Air conditioner and 5 years over the compressor. Since the complainant has purchased the 1.5 Ton 3 star 183 LX model split A.C. on 31.1.2014, the conditions enumerated under the warranty card is applicable on happening of events till expiry of the same. The complainant knows and had means to know about the said conditions. The LX-183 & LY-183 are two models of 3 stars A.C. LX-183 provides the Aluminum condenser and LY 183 model provides the copper condenser. It is further submitted here that the cost of A.C. machine with copper condenser is much more than the A.C. machine with aluminum condenser. Therefore, one person cannot get hot and cold at the same time. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the A.C. on 31.1.2014 and started the same on 21.3.2014. It was alleged in the complaint petition that on being started the complainant found no cooling for which he lodged a complaint. In pursuance of his complaint the technician came and found there was leakage of gas and the defects pointed out was removed. The claim of the complainant about replacement of outer unit on the plea of old is contrary to the conditions enumerated under the warranty. So in view of the same replacement is not permissible. Filing of complaint petition to change the outer unit without any fault, imperfection, and shortcoming etc. the complaint petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Under the contract since the warranty card nothing stipulates for replacement of outer part in absence of happening of any events, therefore, question of replacement of outer unit does not arise at all. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint petition so also the prayer has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected.
5. On the date of final hearing of the consumer dispute, the advocate for the complainant is present and the O.Ps are absent on calls and not filed any steps. We have perused the materials placed on the case record and verified the written arguments filed by the O.Ps.
On perusal of case record it is found that the complainant purchased a Voltas Split Air Conditioner, 1.5 ton capacity, Model 183 LX (3 stars), bearing ID No. 4551541A13E002170 and OD No.4511326L11L022829 from O.P.No.1 on 31.10.2014 and the O.P.No.1 issued a Money Receipt of Rs.32,000/-for the said transaction. Due to winter the use of Air Conditioner was not made in the house of complainant. When summer season comes the complainant started using the AC and found it defective on 21.3.2014 as it was failed to make cooling. The complainant intimated the matter to the O.P.No.2 (service center) for non- cooling of AC and a job sheet is also prepared thereof by O.P.No.2 on dated 23.3.2014. On verification it was found that there was no cooling due to gas leakage and gas filling and other problems. The complainant approached several times to the O.P.No.1 and 2 but they did not give any heed to his grievance, hence finally complainant filed a consumer complaint before this Forum on 16.4.2014. As earlier stated that O.Ps are absent on the date of final hearing, we verified the written version supporting documents and written argument filed by the O.Ps. Para 4 of written version of O.P.No.1 admitted that the said Air Conditioner was purchased from O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.32,000/- including Rs.1,000/- towards installation charges paid on 31.1.2014. The O.Ps contended that all allegations made by the complainant are baseless as complainant never approaches to O.P.No.1 for such complaint. The O.P.No.2 and 3 are manufacturer and authorized service center submitted their written version on dated 18.8.2016 and written argument on dt.3.10.2016. The OP No.2 &3 admitted that on 31.1.2014 the complainant purchased a Voltas Air Conditioner from O.P.No.1. According to them Air Conditioner has two model i.e. LX 183 and LY 183. The Air Conditioner LX-183 provides the Aluminum condenser and LY 183 model provides the copper condenser. The price of the AC copper condenser is much more than aluminum condenser. At the time of visiting the showroom it is well understood that the complainant as per his budget purchased LX 183 model. The complainant reported the problem of non-cooling on 21.3.2014 and same was also being found defective when a technician visited to his house since there was leakage of gas due to manufacturing defect. On perusal of the job card of repairing of the AC it is found that during the warranty period it was repaired twice by the service centre 21.3.2014 and on 23.03.2014 for non-cooling of the AC by the O.P. No.2. When a product found defective after purchase of only two months and even after twice repairing it is not found perfect for use, it will be inferred as manufacturing defective very much within during the warranty period. In that view of matter we would like to say that the AC was manufacturing defect and the same could not be removed. When a new product suffering from some inherent defect and even after repeated service it was not removed, the O.Ps are liable to replace or return the amount of the complainant toward cost of the product. It has also been alleged that the O.P.No.1 has delivered an old model AC instead of a new model and the same is comes under unfair trade practice. However, on verification we do not find any such thing in this case and for that the complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.90,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and physical and financial torture and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation. However, the complainant has not filed any cogent and convincing documentary evidence with regard to his financial loss or mental harassment but we are convinced that he has hired the services of an advocate so we are inclined to direct the O.Ps to pay litigation cost. Accordingly, the case of the complainant is partially allowed against all the O.Ps who are jointly liable to replace or refund the cost of the AC.
6. In the result, we direct the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to replace a new Voltas Split Air Conditioner of Model 183 LX (3 Stars) in place of defective one or to refund the cost of the Air Conditioner of Rs.32,000/-(Rupees Thirty Two Thousand) only. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost to the complainant. The above orders shall be carried by the O.Ps within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the awarded amount shall carry 6% interest per annum till realization and to be recovered under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is also directed to return the defective Air Conditioner to the O.P.No.1 at the time of receiving new Air Conditioner or cost of the AC. The case is disposed of accordingly.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 23rd May 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
