Delhi

South Delhi

CC/323/2018

DEVINDER KUMAR MEHTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIQUE ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No. 323/2018

 

Devinder Mehta

Resident of G-41, Green Park Main,

New Delhi-110016

….Complainant

Versus

 

Unique Enterprises

Through its M.D. Mr. Rishi Khanna

Having its office at

D-79, LGF, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-Delhi-110017, India

 

Mr. Rishi Khanna

M.D. of Unique Enterprises

Having its office at

D-79, LGF, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-Delhi-110017, India

 

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

A Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956,

12^th Floor, Ambience Island,

Gurgaon-122002,

Near National Highway-8

 

Air Con Engineers

D-22, South Extension,

Part-1, New Delhi-110049

 ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution     :29.10.2018       

 Date of Order            : 30.01.2023       

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

 

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking replacement of 2 ton ACs supplied by the OP with new models; refund of the amount of Rs. 1,200/- along with interest @ 18% p.a and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards mental harassment caused and Rs.1,00,000/- towards legal costs. OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the product, OP No. 1 is the dealer of OP No.3, OP No.2 is the partner of OP No.1 and OP No.4 is the customer care executive of OP No.3.

 

1. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased 2 split air conditioners of the make Panasonic, one of1.5 ton model CHSLC8UKY (3 star) and second of 2 ton model CSLC24UKY (3 star) from OP 1 on 30.04.2018. It is the case of the complainant that they selected the air conditioners on the recommendation of the owner ofOP1 who represented these models as the latest ones and assured quality in the product as also quality in service. The total cost of both the ACs together was Rs. 80,000/.

 

2. Since the complainant did not take the pipe of the AC, the sum of Rs. 2,000/- was reduced thereby making the total cost as Rs. 78,000/. Payment of Rs. 50,000 was made by credit card and Rs. 28,000/- was paid by way of cheque. Copy of the retail invoice is Annexure 2 given to the complainant showing that OP deceived the complainant by including Panasonic split AC 2.0 ton CSUC24SKY 3(3 star)(referred to as ‘old model’) in the description of goods while the complainant had categorically demanded the latest model available in the market which was Panasonic split AC 2.0 ton CSLC24UKY.

 

3. It is the case of the complainant that being a consumer, he could not be expected to know the technical make of the AC however, he categorically demanded the latest model which was agreed to by the OP.

 

4. It is further stated by the Complainant that when the air conditioners were delivered at his residence, an employee of OP 3 and 4 came on 02.05.2018 and he installed one AC of 2 ton. Then again he came on 03.05.2018 and installed the second AC of 1.5 ton and charged Rs. 1,200/- in cash with receipt.

 

5. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of purchase, he was told that installation was to be done free of cost however, he was charged Rs. 1,200/- on the pretext of installation charges. The copy of the receipt is annexed along with the complaint as Annexure 3.

 

6. It is stated by the complainant that he noted the difference in the outer units of the 2 air conditioners on 03.05.2018 and found that the outer unit of the AC of 2 ton was of old model CSUC24SKY 3. Coloured photographs of both the ACs highlighting the difference in the outer bodies of the ACs is annexed as Annexure 4.

 

7. It is further stated by the complainant that there are various technical deficiencies in the old model CSLC24SKY 3(3 star) and its outer unit. The Panasonic split AC 2 ton CSUC24SKY 3(3 star)(old model) is a model that is outdated and no longer available in the market, it has been replaced by Panasonic split AC 2.0 ton CSLC24SKY3 star which is more efficient in terms of voltage and amperage. When the complainant visited the office of the OP to discuss the issue, OP asked the complainant to pay approximately Rs. 11,000/- in order to give the 2 ton AC model CSLC24UKY3 (3 star)but the complainant refused to do so.

 

8. It is further stated by the complainant that there are various technical deficiencies in the old model and its outer unit. It is an out-dated model and no longer available in the market and has been replaced by Panasonic Split AC 2.0ton CSLC24UKY which is more efficient. It is stated the old model consumes more power, the outer body of the old model is made of powered coated MS Sheet whereas the outer body of the new model is eco tough silver metal body which is rust free. There is also a difference in price of two models and as per information received from other dealers, the cost of 2 ton old model is Rs. 38,500/- whereas the complainant ended up the pay Rs. 45,500/-.

 

9. It is stated by the complainant that he has not used or touched the Panasonic Split AC that is an old model and same is kept in the same condition as it was delivered and installed by the OP. It is stated by the complainant that the OP has adopted fraudulent sales tactic which was below the good faith standard and affects the consumer ability to take an informed decision.

 

10. The complainant further submits that as per the definition of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, the OPs have falsely represented that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade when it was not. OP-1 had provided misleading facts and made false promises using aggressive sales tactic. It is the case of the complainant that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practices by supplying goods other than the one selected, purchased and paid for by the complainant in blatant violation of settled principles of Consumer law.

 

11.  OP-1,2 and 3 in their written statement have stated that the complaint is liable to dismissed as the complainant as the complaint is not triable by this Commission as there are allegation of fraud which can only be handled by Civil Courts by having detailed cross-examination of persons involved in the process of same. It is further stated that the complaint is not maintainable as it is totally misconceived, false, vexatious and has been filed with the ulterior motive to harass the OP. as there is no cause of action against the OP.

 

12.   It is further stated that the complaint is liable to dismissed as the complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency of service in the product sold by the OPs. It is stated by them that the detailed invoice dated 30.04.2018 issued by OP-1 correctly mentions the model of 2 ton model no. CSUC24SKY (3 Star) sold, delivered and installed at the residence of the complainant being model no. CSUC24SKY (3 Star). There is nothing on record to mention that the complainant had ordered any other model of the AC as alleged by him.

 

13.   OP has also stated that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Punjab Commission in the case of Antrak Singh Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited II(1993) CPJ 1144  and has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in case of Sanjay Goyal Vs. M/s Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. C.C. No. 429/2015 decided on 08.08.2017.

 

14. On merits, it is stated that the OP never persuaded the complainant to purchase any product and the complainant, at the time of visiting the store of OP-1 had the details of the AC units to be purchased which he had obtained online. It is further stated by OP that they are not selling model no. CSLC24UKY (3 Star) 2 ton AC therefore, there was no occasion for them to have assured the complainant about selling that product.

 

15. It is further stated CSLC24UKY (3 Star) 2 ton AC was Rs. 12,000/- more expensive then the model purchased by the complainant and  which finds  mention in the invoice provided to the complainant and it was not objected to by the complainant at the time of installation. It is stated that the complainant now wants to upgrade to new model at the cost of OP.

 

16. It is stated that at the time of sale of ACs, OPs were running a scheme of installation @ Rs. 499/- per AC + taxes, hence the installation cost of Rs. 600/- per AC was collected by OP-4 and the allegation of the complainant that installation was to be free is false.

 

17. It is further stated that in case the complainant could make out the difference between AC units then he should have complained at the time of installation and not at a belated stage. It is further stated that the complainant never visited the showroom of OP-1 and 2 pursuant to purchase of AC hence there was no occasion of changing the AC or charging more for the other model.

 

18. It is further stated that the AC purchased by the complainant was the cheapest model of 2 ton AC and even at that time OP-3 was charging premium of around Rs. 12,000/- on the new model. The power consumption of both the model is not disputed by the OP and it is reiterated that in case the complainant could see the difference in the outer bodies he should have objected at the time of installation.

 

19. In the rejoinder, complainant has mostly denied all the allegations that have been made by the OPs in their reply and has reiterated what has been stated in the complaint. It is stated by the complainant that OP no.1 took undue advantage of the complainant’s lack of awareness about the models available and mentioned the older model in the invoice CSUC24SKY3 (3 star) and charged the price of the new model CSLC24UKY (3 star) despite the fact that they had assured the complainant that the ACs were the latest models in the market and even provided the complaint with the brochure which highlighted all the features of the latest models.

 

20. It is further stated by the complainant that it was only on 03.05.2018 that the complainant noticed the difference in the outer units of the 2 air conditioners and found that the outer unit of AC of 2 ton was of old model CSUC24SKY 3as one AC was installed on 02.05.2018 and the other one on 03.05.2018. It is reiterated by the complainant that the model supplied to him is outdated and no longer available in the market except with OP 1 and who is selling it at a higher price.

 

21. It is also reiterated by the complainant that one representative of OP 2 in his own hand had done series of calculations on which there was number mention of any installation charges. The slip is annexed as Annexure A 1.

 

The parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written submissions. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and it is seen from the invoice placed on record that the complainant was charged for a Panasonic split AC 2.0 ton CSCUC 24SKY 3(3 star) @ Rs 31640.63and was also delivered the same. As seen from the record there is no misrepresentation as the complainant was supplied the very same model which he paid for, contrary to his claim that he had paid Rs.48,000/- for a model which was a newer one but was supplied an old model. To this extent, the complainant has not been able to prove that he had demanded the latest model in the market whereas he was provided the model which the OP had in its possession. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited Vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 wherein it was held

 

 

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

 

 

This Commission is of the view that the complainant has not been able to prove his case against the OPs.

 

At the same time this Commission has seen that neither the invoice nor any other document mentions installation charges being Rs.600/- per AC therefore we direct OP 1 to repay Rs.1,200/- to the complainant with interest at 5% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation. OP 1 and 2 are liable to pay this amount to the complainant within 2 months from the date of order of this Commission failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the sum with

 

interest at 7% p. a. till realisation. No order as to costs.

 

Parties to be provided copy of order as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.