IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday the 15^th day of September, 2021.

                                      Filed on 17-05-2019

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.109/2019

between

Complainant:-                                                     Opposite parties:-

Sri.Ambujakshan Nair                                1.     The Proprietor

S/o Thankappan Nair                                         Areepurathu Home Appliances

Vetiykad House                                                 Areepurath Building, Kacherimukku

Komana Muri                                                     Ambalappuzha, Alappuzha

Karumady Village                                              (Adv.Sri.C.Parameswaran)

Ambalappuzha

(Adv.Sri.K.Sreekumar)                              2.     The Managing Director

                                                                          LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                          A Wing (3^rd floor), D-3, District Center

                                                                          Saket, New Delhi-110017

                                                                          (Adv.Sri.R.Padmaraj)

O R D E R

SMT. P.R SHOLY (MEMBER)

Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-

The complainant bought an Air conditioner for his household uses from the 1^st opposite party, by paying an amount of Rs.49,700/- against invoice No.179 dated 25.05.2018.  On the same date the technicians of the opposite parties came to the complainant’s house for fitting the said AC along with the stabilizer which was purchased by the complainant for the safety of the AC.  After 1 week from the purchase date the AC has started malfunctioning and the remote of the AC was also not working.  As soon as the AC started malfunctioning, the complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the complaint of the AC.  But for three times, they had sent unskilled technicians and thus the complaint was not rectified.  After that the complainant demanded a replacement of the AC, under warranty as the product was under warranty period at the time of malfunctioning.  But the opposite parties tried to pull on the snag rectification to exhaust the warranty period of the said AC.  The opposite parties never bothered about replacement of the product which was under warranty and also tried to exhaust the warranty period by not rectifying the errors within the said time period.

2.      The acts of the opposite parties clearly states deficiency in service and the complainant demands return of the price value of the unserviceable AC along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the suffering of the complainant in the summer with the faulty AC which was purchased from the opposite party.

3.      1^st opposite party filed version mainly contenting as follows:-

          The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  This opposite party is only a seller of the product of 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the only party responsible for giving service to the products after its sale.  Moreover the complainant was satisfied with the AC in question at the time of its installation.  The averment that the complainant had purchased the said AC under the instigation of opposite party No.1 is false, hence denied.  There was no manufacturing defect on the AC in question and there may be possibility for the defects due to the negligence and service abuses on the part of the complainant.  There was no defects to the AC purchased by the complainant.  This case is a gross abuse of the process of law and was filed with ulterior motives for getting monitory profits from the opposite parties.  Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

4.      2^nd opposite party filed version mainly contenting as follows:-

          On 25.05.2018 complainant purchased an LG split AC from 1^st opposite party and the same was installed in the complainant’s house in the place shown by him.  The AC is installed in the 1^st floor room wherein direct sunlight is received on the roof.  The room size is around 120 sq.metre and the AC is having 1 ton capacity only.  Therefore during summer the room temperature would not come down as expected though the temperature discharged from the AC at its grill point is having proper cooling.  On receiving a complaint from the complainant on 23.02.2019 the service engineers visited the place and inspected the grill temperature and found that the AC was working properly.  Accordingly there was no complaint or manufacturing defect to the AC, but the less cooling is due to external reason of the room size and exposure of the roof of the room to direct sunlight throughout the day.  The service engineers have demonstrated the proper working of the AC to the complainant and explained to him the reason for insufficient cooling during the summer season.  But the complainant not accepted the same and filed this complaint on experimental basis.

5.      On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to return the prize value of the AC which he purchased from the 1^st opposite party with interest @ 18% per annum from opposite parties 1 and 2?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation?
4. Reliefs and cost?

6.      Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 from the side of complainant.  No oral or documentary evidence on the side of opposite parties.  Counsel for the complainant filed notes of arguments.  Heard both sides.

7.      Point Nos.1 to 3

          PW1 is the complainant in this case.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A5.

          PW1, the complainant had purchased an AC from the 1^st opposite party as per Ext.A1 invoice on 25.05.2018.  The said AC was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant purchased the said Air Conditioner by believing the assurance made by the 2^nd opposite party through advertisement regarding the warranty and after sale home service of their product without any complaint.  The AC is having a warranty for 12 months on all parts except front grills, plastic parts and thereafter 4 years for normal compressor and 9 years for inverter compressor.  According to the complainant the AC started malfunctioning just within one week of its installation.  It was also noticed that there were no cooling from the AC and the remote was also not functioning in its swing mode.  When complained to the opposite parties on 23.02.2019 and 26.02.2019 the 1^st opposite party sent company technician, but could not succeed.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint.  Opposite parties filed version separately admitting the sale of LG split AC on 25.05.2018 from 1^st opposite party.  It is also admitted that the AC was installed by the technicians of opposite parties.  However in the version the 2^nd opposite party contented that the room size where the AC was installed is around 120 sq.meter and it was not enough to discharge the expected output of the AC since the same is having capacity of 1 ton only.  2^nd opposite party also contended that less cooling is due to exposure of the roof of the room to direct sunlight throughout the day.  Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked.  No oral or documentary evidence were adduced by opposite parties No.1 and 2.

8.      The fact that PW1 purchased AC from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by 2^nd opposite party as per Ext.A1 invoice is not in dispute.  According to PW1 at the beginning of its installation the AC and its remote were started malfunctioning and problems started regarding cooling.  The main contention of 1^st opposite party is that they are only the seller of the products of opposite party No.2 and 2^nd opposite party is only responsible to provide service to the products after its sale.  However the 2^nd opposite party contended that the only reason for cooling problem of the said AC is the size of room there the AC installed and wherein direct sunlight is received on the roof.   As discussed earlier it is an admitted case that the said Ac was installed in the house of complainant by the technicians of the opposite parties.  If the AC in question was not having capacity as much of the room which it was installed, they could have informed the same to PW1 at that time itself.  Otherwise it can only be considered as negligence on the part of opposite parties and thereby it is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Moreover   the complainant averred that he had reported the defect to the 1^st opposite party on 23.02.2019.  The same was admitted by 2^nd opposite party in their version that their service engineers visited and inspected the AC on 23.02.2019.  Accordingly it was within warranty period.  In this occasion it is pertinent to note that in Ext.A2 which is the quick reference guide to the product along with warranty, the customer copy of the same seen not filled in the particular portion of installation and commissioning and also not signed by the installer and customer.   It was the duty of the 1^st opposite party to fill up the said document at the time of purchase the product and its installation.  More over during cross examination of 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party the PW1 deposed that before purchasing the AC the engineer form opposite party suggested about the capacity of AC after inspecting the room of the complainant.  PW1 also clarified the same in re-examination that the opposite parties did not told the said AC was unfit for the room.  In the said circumstances it can be seen that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, so these points are found in favour of the complainant.  The contention of 1^st opposite party that they are not responsible to the grievance of the complainant is not all admissible.  Because in several cases regarding defective products, the Hob’ble Supreme Court as well as National Commission have held the retailer as well as the manufacturer is responsible for the quality of goods sold to the consumer.  Since the complainant seeks the refund of purchase price of the product we allow the same accordingly.  However we are limiting the compensation to Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only).

9.      Point No.4

          In the result complaint stands allowed in part:-

1. Opposite parties are directed to refund the purchase price of AC Rs.49,700/- (Rupees fourty-nine thousand and seven hundred only) to the complainant and take back the defected AC within one month of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay Rs.49,700/- along with interest to the said amount @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
2. Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation from opposite parties.
3. Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost from opposite parties.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 15^th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-Smt. P.R Sholy (Member) :

Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

 Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                           -           Sri.Ambujakshan Nair (Witness)

Ext.A1                       -           Tax invoice dtd.25.05.2018

Ext.A2                       -           Copy of quick reference guide for AC

Ext.A3                       -           Acknowledgement card

Ext.A4                       -           Postal receipts

Ext.A5                       -           Copy of notice dtd.11.05.2019

Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL

// True Copy //

To

            Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                               By Order

                                                                                                       Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-