Hisar District Commission Holds Lloyd Electric And Its Seller Liable For Selling Defective AC And Failing To Rectify Issues
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Jagdeep Singh (President), Mrs Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr Amita Aggarwal (Member) held Lloyd Electric and Eng. Ltd. and its seller, Deendayal Electronics liable for deficiency in service for selling an AC with a manufacturing defect and subsequently failing to resolve the same. They were directed...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Jagdeep Singh (President), Mrs Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr Amita Aggarwal (Member) held Lloyd Electric and Eng. Ltd. and its seller, Deendayal Electronics liable for deficiency in service for selling an AC with a manufacturing defect and subsequently failing to resolve the same. They were directed to either replace the AC or pay Rs. 30,000 to the Complainant with compensation of Rs. 4,000/-.
Brief Facts:
Mr Vijay Kumar Mittal (“Complainant”) purchased an Air conditioner from Deendayal Electronics (“Seller”), manufactured by Lloyd Electric and Eng. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”). The purchase included a one-year warranty. However, the AC started facing issues with gas leakage just 15 days after installation. Upon reporting the problem to the seller, the AC was promptly repaired by refilling the gas. Unfortunately, the gas leakage problem recurred after 10-15 days, thereafter, the seller reinstalled the gas again. Subsequently, a series of issues arose, including less cooling, compressor noise, and increased electricity consumption due to repeated gas leakage problems. Despite complaints by the Complainant about the customer care of the seller, only limited repairs were conducted to the AC. Frustrated by the continuous issues and unsatisfactory customer care services, the Complainant reported the matter to the Manufacturer's customer service head. The Complainant sent a notice expressing dissatisfaction with the service and seeking either replacement or a refund for the AC. But the Manufacturer didn't provide any replacement or refund to the defaulted AC. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar, Haryana (“District Commission”).
The Seller didn't appear before the District Commission and didn't file any written statement. While the representative appeared on behalf of the Manufacturer, no written statement was filed by him.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission held that the evidence presented established that there was a manufacturing defect in the AC and despite numerous attempts by the Seller's engineers, the problem persisted, and the Complainant remained unsatisfied. Further, the District Commission noted that the evidence established that the AC had a manufacturing defect from the beginning, and the service engineers failed to rectify the problem despite being aware of the ongoing issues. In light of the aforementioned, the District Commission held that the Seller and the Manufacturer were liable for deficiency in service.
Consequently, the District Commission directed the Seller and the Manufacturer to remove the defective AC from the Complainant's premises at their own expense and replace it with a new one of the same model or a higher model within 45 days. If replacement was not feasible, the District Commission directed them to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant as the cost of the AC along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint until realization. Further, it also directed them to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Mittal vs Lloyd and another.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. :430/2019
Advocate for the Complainant: Dharmender S. Rana
Click Here To Read/Download The Order