Order no. 17
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased an A.C. machine on 6.6.12 at a price of Rs.26,000/- from o.p. no.3. The A.C. machine was working properly during the initial stage, subsequently it was found that there was some defects which cropped up during the warranty period. Though it was settled that one representative of the company would visit the place of the complainant for inspection of the machine three times in a year and accordingly one Sanjay Jaiswal checked the indoor unit and cleaned but the outdoor unit was not checked. Suddenly on 26.6.13 at about 2-45 a.m. the complainant noticed that there was a burst in the said machine causing the leakage of poisonous gas, thereafter informed the said fact to o.p. company and also loaded a complaint with the company served centre. The service centre thereafter sent a representative who demanded Rs.450/- as inspection charge in spite of continuation of warranty for one year plus four years warranty for outdoor unit. Because of such damage caused in the said machine the complainant has suffered financial loss and for which the complainant filed this case praying for replacement of the defective machine and also for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.p. nos.1, 2 and 4 contested this case by filing their w/vs and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.3 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.3.
It was stated by o.p. no.4 that after getting the complaint from the complainant it was only forwarded by o.p. no.4 to o.p. nos.1, 2 and 3. Being a dealer of o.p. nos.1 and 2 neither the manufacturer nor the service centre and as such, o.p. no.4 stated that o.p. no.4 has been falsely implicated in this case and accordingly o.p. no.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.
It was stated by o.p. nos.1 and 2 that the complainant purchased the A.C. machine on 6.6.12 and the warranty period of the said machine was for one year in respect of all parts of the said machine and thereafter four years additional warranty is to be given in respect of the compressor from the date of purchase of the product. Hence the warranty period of whole A.C. machine was given for one year to the complainant and the additional warranty period of compressor was given for four years from the date of purchase separately. The complainant did not come before this Forum within the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase and the whole A.C. machine was out of warranty period from 5.6.13 and the complainant filed this case without any cogent reason whatsoever and accordingly o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case. It was stated that the company’s obligation under the warranty shall be limited to repair or providing replacement of defective parts only under the warranty period. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. The warranty period does not mean for exchange or replace new one or claim money. So the dealer will not take back or exchange the goods once sold. There is a wide difference between warranty and guarantee and o.ps. did not provide any guarantee, so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the A.C machine was found defective during the period of warranty.
- Whether the damage caused to the said machine covered the warranty period for 1+4 years.
- Whether the complainant sustained any loss.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the A.C. machine was purchased on 6.6.12 at a price of Rs.26,000/- and said machine was found bursting causing leakage to poisonous gas on 26.6.13. Thereafter the complainant called the o.p. company to register the complaint but it was refused, subsequently the complainant pressurized the dealer to lodge a complaint to o.p. company on 9.7.13 and on the basis of the complainant a representative came to the house of the complainant and charged an amount of Rs.450/- though the warranty period 1+4 years remained in force. Ld. lawyer emphasized that since the said machine was found defective during the period of warranty it is the responsibility of the company to replace the machine as well as to pay the compensation.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 and 2 argued that the warranty period covered one year for the A.C. machine and four years for the compressor machine, since the defect arose in the said machine after the period of one year therefore o.p. nos.1 and 2 cannot be held responsible for replacement of the machine or to pay the price of the machine since the warranty does not cover the replacement of the machine or the full reimbursement of the price of the machine. In view of the said fact ld. lawyer for o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Ld. lawyer for o.p. no.3 argued that since he is a dealer it is not the responsibility of the dealer to replace the machine, only manufacturer can replace the said machine.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant purchased A.C. machine on 6.6.12 and an accident took place in the said machine on 26.6.13 causing the bursting of the machine resulting in leakage of poisonous gas in working condition while the complainant was alone in her room. The time of the accident took place at about 2-45 a.m. Though ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the warranty period covered only one year and the accident took place after the lapse of one year and thereafter the defect arose in the said machine cannot be replaced by o.p. nos.1 and 2, but it is an admitted fact that the said machine had some defect for which the said accident took place at the midnight of the date of incident. It is also an admitted fact that the warranty was for 1+4 years though the complainant argued that the incident had not taken place within the warranty period which has been denied by o.ps. But from the materials on record it is crystal clear that the said incident of bursting of said machine took place within 1½ years and the complainant sustained mental agony since the incident took place during the midnight on the date of the incident while she was alone in the room. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant is an aged lady of 76 years old and having some old age related illness. In such circumstances we hold that an untoward incident could have taken place because of the bursting of the said machine and as such we hold that o.ps. are liable to cure the defect of the machine without any payment of cost to be incurred by the complainant and the complainant will be entitled to get compensation for mental agony. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.542/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. nos.1 and 2 and ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.3 and dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. no.4. The o.p. nos.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to repair the A.C. machine in question without imposing any charge upon the complainant and are also directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
