IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 833 of 2023 [(Against the order passed in RBT/C.C. No.45 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Villupuram)

(Old CC No.13/2015 on the file of DCDRC, Chennai(South)]

Friday, the 28^th day of March 2025 The Manager M/s. Vivek Limited

167, North Usman Road Chennai – 600 017. .. Appellant/

Opposite Party - Vs –

A.N. Nandakumar No.18/1, 1^st Floor, 2^nd Street Subramanya Nagar Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. .. Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for Appellant/

Opposite Party : M/s. K.P.C. Mogan The Respondent/Complainant : Served, Called Absent This appeal came up for final hearing on 05.11.2024, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following,

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the opposite party as against the order dated 16.09.2022 passed in RBT/C.C. No.45 of 2022, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part.

2. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.

3. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows: The Complainant purchased 2 Nos. of Samsung Split Air Conditioners from the opposite party on 29.04.2013 under Bill No. 11441301984. The said Air Conditioners were installed in his new house at M12/15 TNHB Ambattur Thiruverkadu Road, Ayappakkam, Chennai – 600 112. From the day of installation, one Air Conditioner was not working properly. Several times the technician of the opposite party visited the residence of the complainant and serviced the Air Conditioner, but the defect could not be rectified. Hence, on

09.12.2013 the servicemen took the compressor to the service centre for repairing, but even after the service it was not working properly. Again, based on the complaint given by the complainant on 02.04.2014, the technician of the opposite party took the whole unit of AC to the service centre but still the repair persisted. Hence, the complainant came to the conclusion that the opposite party had sold a damaged Air Conditioner to him and as such he requested to replace the same with a new one. In this regard, the complainant had sent several letters to the opposite party and also contacted telephonically. But there is no proper response from the opposite party. Since the opposite party is not able to rectify the recurring repair, which had occurred from the day of installation, the opposite party is duty bound to replace the defective Air Conditioner with a new one. Due to the act of the opposite party in selling the defective Air Conditioner, the complainant suffered mental agony and hence the complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.08.2014 to the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.29,500/- towards the cost of the Air Conditioner. But the opposite party neither sent a reply nor complied with the request of the complainant. Hence, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the present complaint was filed before the District Commission, for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.29,500/- towards the cost of the Air Conditioner, along with the cost of the complaint.

4. Resisting the case of the complainant, the opposite party has filed a written version stating that the complainant had purchased 2 Nos. of Samsung Split Air Conditioners, of 1 Ton capacity, each on 03.05.2013. But the other allegations of the complainant that from the day of installation one AC is not properly working and several times workmen of the opposite