State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Haier Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Harbans Lal Wahdwa, on 27 January, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1721 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 08.12.2009.
Date of Decision: 27.01.2012.
M/s Haier Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd., SCO-256, 2nd Floor, Sector 44-C,
Chandigarh (shifted from 152, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh), through
its Branch Service Manager-I.J. Singh.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Harbans Lal Wahdwa, Sole Prop. of M/s Uttam Chemicals, D-18,
Industrial Growth Centre, Mansa Raod, Bathinda.
2. M/s Darpan Sales, Post Office, Bathinda, through its
Proprietor/partner.
3. M/s Adev. Electronics Market, Authorized Service Centre of Haier
Appliances India (Pvt.) Ltd., near Krishna Continental Hotel, Bibiwala
Road, Bathinda through its Authorized Representative.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
08.10.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sanjay Judge, Advocate.
For respondent no.1 : Sh. Om Parkash Arora, Advocate.
For respondents no.2 & 3 : Exparte.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
M/s Haier Appliances (I) Pvt. Ltd., appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Harbans Lal Wahdwa, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3, pleading that he purchased First Appeal No.1721 of 2009 2 one Air Conditioner 1.0 Ton Window make HAIER, Model 12CK03, Sr. No.HR12CK081900934 from respondent no.2, manufactured by the appellant, for a sum of Rs.13,500/- vide bill no.1431 dated 21.01.2009. One year guarantee was provided. On 20.03.2009, the AC was installed, but to the surprise of the respondent no.1, the fan of the AC was touching the body and was giving the unpleasant sound and heating coil was also bent. The remote of the AC also did not work.
3. Respondent no.1 approached respondent no.2 and complained about the defects in the aforesaid AC manufactured by the appellant and the said dealer assured that his complaint will be forwarded to the authorized service centre i.e. respondent no.3. For 4-5 days when no response came from respondent no.3, then respondent no.1 again approached the dealer, who told that he will again get the complaint registered with the service centre. When respondent no.1 approached the service centre, respondent no.3 told that the dealer has forwarded his complaint and the engineer of the company will come within a day or two, to rectify the defect. After two days, the serviceman from the service centre came to the premises of respondent no.1, but he could not remove the defect and respondent no.1 lodged a complaint on the toll free number of the appellant, vide complaint no.10000079290 dated 30.03.2009. On the same day, respondent no.1 received a call from the service centre and it was told that the engineer from the service centre will come on the next day, but no engineer came. Respondent no.1 again rang up to the company, but it was replied that the complaint of respondent no.1 has already been dealt with and the defect has been rectified, which is totally false as the AC was never repaired.
4. On 04.04.2009, respondent no.1 again lodged the complaint with the appellant and a mechanic from the service centre came, who opened the AC and put a washer under the base of the fan of the AC and on the job sheet, it was written that the defect was in the front of grill and the same will be replaced within 10 days. Respondent no.1 wrote on the job sheet that new First Appeal No.1721 of 2009 3 AC is full of defects and does not work properly from the very first day and it should be replaced.
5. After 2-3 days of the said complaint, when respondent no.1 started the said AC, the smoke accumulated in the room and respondent no.1 switched off the AC and the compressor of the AC went off, but the fan was still working and the said fan stopped only when the main power was switched off and the complaint was again lodged with the service centre. The mechanic of the service centre said that the PCB of the said AC had burnt and took along with the burnt PCB and told that the same will be changed after it is received from the company, but the same was never done. The respondent no.1 wrote letter dated 01.05.2009 which was replied on 19.05.2009 in vague terms. Respondent no.1 was left with no alternative, except to file the present complaint and it was prayed that the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 be directed to refund the amount of the AC i.e. Rs.13,500/- and to pay compensation to respondent no.1 to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and tension and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
6. Appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and were proceeded against exparte.
7. The respondent no.1 led his exparte evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 failed to remove the defects in the AC and respondent no.1 has to spend another amount of Rs.17,600/- for the purchase of another AC and suffered mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and inconvenience, and directed the appellants and respondents no.2 & 3 to reimburse the cost of AC to the tune of Rs.13,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.
First Appeal No.1721 of 2009 4
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.10.2009, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent no.1.
11. The respondents no.2 & 3 have not contested the appeal and were proceeded against exparte.
12. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the District Forum passed the exparte order, without any due and proper service on the appellant, or else the appellant would have contested the case on merits, to bring out the true facts on record. The District Forum failed to take notice of the fact that the said AC was under
warranty and the same would have been rectified and repaired to the satisfaction of respondent no.1, but it seems that no genuine efforts were made by respondent no.1 to get his grievances redressed.
13. The PCB of the AC was burnt only on account of high voltage of the current at the residence of respondent no.1, as there was no voltage stabilizer fitted with the AC which is a mandatory requirement in various parts of Punjab, on account of fluctuation of the electricity. The appellant tried to redress the grievances of respondent no.1 which is clear from the documents Annexures-A4 to A8. The appellant is an organization of repute and are manufacturer of high quality products, such as TVs, refrigerators, ACs etc. under strict quality control. In the present case, the defect reported was with regard to PCB which got burnt due to voltage fluctuation. No expert has been examined to prove any manufacturing defect in the said AC. The AC in question is still installed at the residence of respondent no.1 and purchasing of another AC does not help the respondent no.1 in any manner, as there can be two ACs in the house. The appellant is still ready to inspect the AC and to rectify the defects which occurred on account of manufacturing defect, if any, and due to operational reasons, but in this case, the PCB was burnt due to First Appeal No.1721 of 2009 5 the negligence of respondent no.1 and the appellant is not liable. Every gadget when in use makes requisite operational noise and in the present case, one ton AC was installed and under no circumstances, the same can be expected to operate noiselessly. The order of the District Forum is unreasonable and is liable to be set aside and prayed that the same may be set aside.
14. In the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent no.1, same facts as pleaded in the complaint were repeated and it was reiterated that the defects were not rectified and the attitude of the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 was non-cooperative. The appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 were duly served, but they did not deliberately attend the proceedings before the District Forum. The correspondence exchanged between the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 Annexures-A4 to A8 clearly show the intention of the opposite parties. The defects were pointed out regarding the unpleasant sound, loud noise, heating coil, swing lever not working, remote battery leaking, but the same were not rectified. Three phase electric connection is available in the premises and 5.0 KVA stabilizer was fitted in the electrical panel on the main supply through the premises. No stabilizer was required to be fitted with the AC as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The other electrical appliances of respondent no.1 installed in the same premises did not get any adverse effect of voltage fluctuation if any, as alleged. The extracts from Annexures-A4 to A8 show that the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 waited for the legal action or issuing legal notice before taking any action. The intention of the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 was not to cooperate, with malafide intention, and did not bother and respondent no.1 was compelled to take legal action. Respondent no.1 suffered monetary loss as well as mental tension and harassment and the order of the District Forum is correct, legal and the appeal may kindly be dismissed with additional cost of Rs.11,000/- and additional compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
First Appeal No.1721 of 2009 6
15. We have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent no.1 and have carefully gone through the entire record.
16. Respondent no.1 purchased 1.0 ton AC Window make HAIER, Model 12CK03, Sr. No.HR12CK081900934 from respondent no.2 vide invoice Ex.C2 for Rs.13,500/- on 21.01.2009, but immediately after installing the AC, the defect developed and ultimately, PCB was also burnt. The appellant vide letter Ex.C4 dated 19.05.2009 wrote to respondent no.1 that he should withdraw the letter dated 01.05.2009 and as a goodwill gesture, they are willing to replace the PCB on installing the separate voltage stabilizer along with AC, as the PCB has been burnt due to high and fluctuation in the voltage. The appellant has placed on file the copy of the same letter and copies of the messages, but the same in no way help the appellant. The appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 have not brought on record any evidence to support their version that the PCB was burnt due to voltage fluctuation. The mere mentioning in the written arguments, without any evidence in support of it, is of no help to the appellant.
17. The appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 were duly served through registered covers, as is clear from the zimni orders of the District Forum, but they opted not to contest the complaint filed by respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has to purchase another AC on 18.06.2009 itself, just after five months of the purchase of the AC in question, as is clear from the invoice Ex.C3. The guarantee was for one year as admitted by the appellant and the defects were reported within one year and the appellant was supposed to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has purchased a new air conditioner and within the warranty period, it started giving problems and the PCB was also burnt which shows that there was some manufacturing defect in the AC and the District Forum has rightly considered all these aspects and has passed the impugned order under appeal which is legal.
First Appeal No.1721 of 2009 7
18. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 08.10.2009 under appeal passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.15,750/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
20. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.01.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member January 27,2012.
(Gurmeet S)