BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 25/05/2012

Date of Order : 29/11/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 315/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. The facts leading to this complaint are as follows :-

The complainant purchased a split air conditioner valued Rs. 20,500/- from the 2^nd opposite party on 12-02-2010, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The air conditioner had one year warranty and 5 year protection plan. But even before completion of one year of warranty period, the air conditioner went out of order on 07-01-2011. The defect was that it was getting switched off soon after 2 or 3 minutes of switching on. The complainant registered a complaint with the 1^st opposite party initially on 07-01-2011 and again on 31-01-2011 for the very same defect. On both occasions, the mechanic sent by the 1^st opposite party had repaired the air conditioner and informed the complainant that some major component needs to be replaced and that the 1^st opposite party does not have ready stock of the said component. The same problem recurred in March 2011, in November 2011 and on 19-03-2012, the 1^st opposite party could not replace the required component in spite of several promises. Therefore, the complainant issued a pre-litigation notice to the 1^st opposite party by e-mail in April 2012 requesting the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defect, but nothing was done by the 1^st opposite party. Due to the unsatisfactory repairs done on earlier occasions by the 1^st opposite party and due to deficiency in service of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant could not enjoy the amenity of the air conditioner during peak season of the summer. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum seeking replacement of the air conditioner with a new one and for the grant of Rs. 20,000/- for the damages caused by loss of amenity of the air conditioner during summer, Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony and pain suffered and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties, since they are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amounts to the complainant.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows :-

The 1^st opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case, that the purchase of the air conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party was on 13-02-2010, that the contention of the complainant that the air conditioner went out of order during the one year warranty period is denied, that the complaints occurred on 07-01-2011 and on 31-01-2011 were not major problems as averred by the complainant, that the complaint with regard to the air conditioner was with regard to the PCB display, that contention of the complainant that the machine had a snag of switching off after a short span of its working is denied by the 2^nd opposite party. The complaint reported on 19-03-2012 was only with regard to the display that the 1^st opposite party made a humble reply to the pre-litigation notice on 06-04-2012 promising that necessary repairs will be done immediately, that the 1^st opposite party intimated the complainant regarding the unavailability of the required spares but the complainant did not give sufficient time for analyzing the defect and to do the needful, that the 1^st opposite party still considers the complainant a very valuable customer and regret the inconvenience caused to the complainant. It is submitted that there is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, that the allegation of the mental agony or hardship is stretching things a bit too far and it is prayed that the complaint may be settled.

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows :-

The 2^nd opposite party on the other hand contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that there is no dealer-customer relation as between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party, that the 2^nd opposite party is willing to look into the grievance of the complainant, if he produces the invoice or any other document which would tie the 2^nd opposite party to the purchase made by the complainant.

4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on his side. The opposite parties have not adduced any documentary or oral evidence. Heard the complainant who appears in person and the counsel for the opposite parties.

5. The main points to be decided are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective air conditioner with a new one or not?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the damages caused and loss of amenity of air conditioner or not?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony suffered and to the claim of Rs. 3,000/- for the costs of proceedings or not?

    

6. Point No. i. :- The complainant purchased the air conditioner valued Rs. 20,500/- from the 2^nd opposite party on 12-02-2010 as is evidenced by Ext. A3. The new air conditioner started showing complaints on 07-01-2011, then on 31-01-2011 on both the above occasions, the defect of the air conditioner was checked by the service technicians of the 1^st opposite party and some repair works were done and the complainant was told that some major components need replacement. The very same defect occurred during the warranty period continued in March 2011 and in November 2011. The complainant alleges that the recurring defects are due to some inherent manufacturing problems. The opposite parties could not produce any evidence to prove otherwise. The opposite parties claimed that the complaints reported on 07-01-2011 and on 31-01-2011 are minor defects for which they could not produce any positive evidences before this Forum. Therefore, we find that the recurring defects go to show that there is manufacturing defects in the air conditioner sold by the 2^nd opposite party. It is only fair, just and reasonable to replace the defective air conditioner with a brand new air conditioner, especially in view of the 5 year protection plan as evidenced by Ext. A4.

7. Point No. ii. :- This point to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- claimed towards compensation for the loss of amenity of the air conditioner during summer and due to the deficiency service on the part of the opposite parties. It is seen that the air conditioner was unserviceable from 19-11-2011. The four repeated complaints registered after 19-11-2011 were not attended to by the service technicians of the 1^st opposite party, therefore the complainant could not avail uninterrupted amenity of the air conditioner. The complainant finally contacted the CEO or service head in the matter. From the above facts, it is evident that the service provided by the 1^st opposite party is unsatisfactory. We therefore, direct that the 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000./- towards loss of amenity of the air conditioner and for the deficiency in service provided to the complainant.

8. Point No. iii. :- This point to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled to compensation claimed of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony suffered and of Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant is entitled to compensation for the mental agony suffered and for the costs of the proceedings, we feel that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- each would be sufficient to cover the above claims made by the complainant.

9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to replace the defective air conditioner of the complainant with a brand new one at the cost of the 1^st opposite party and to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards compensation for the loss of amenity and deficiency in service. The complainant is directed to return the defective air conditioner to the 1^st opposite party simultaneously.

2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) towards the mental agony suffered and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of November 2013.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========