PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 12/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Rina Choudhury,

W/O-Sri. Sibulal Das,

R/O-Near ITI Colony (NAC Colony), Hirakud

PO/PS-Hirakud, Dist-Sambalpur-768016.                    .……….......Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager, Reliance Retail Limited,

Reliance Digital, PO/Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha, PIN-768004.

2. The General Manager, Reliance Retail Limited,

Reliance Digital, 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhabi Taloo, Mumbai(Maharastra)

PIN-400002.                                                        ....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. D.K.Ajmeria, Adv. & associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :-       Exparte

Date of Filing:30.05.2020,     Date of Hearing :11.04.2023,     Date of Judgement : 15.05.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased DAIKIN FTKH50S inverter Split Air Conditioner, i.e. SAC 1.5T 3SINV from the OP No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 41,990/- under the finance scheme of Bajaj Finance in consequence it Rs. 46,989/- as per the contents of voucher slip against payment dtd. 01.04.2017 issued by the OP No. 1 to the Complainant. The inverter split AC was delivered and installed at the Complainant residence by the OP on 05.04. 2017. The AC covered the guarantee of one year but enhanced later on for further two years. So it is up to dtd. 31th day of May, 2020. On 05.04.2017,  it was not properly cooling as per the demonstration at showroom of the OPs at Ainthapali, Sambalpur, when was asking for the defect, it was orally told by the technicians present during installation that it would give proper cooling on continuation of its using and being lady, the Complainant remained silent. Later the Complainant complained orally with the OP No. 1 upon the defect in cooling, the OP No. 1 promised to send an expert to enhance its cooling capacity but no technician or expert ever went to check and remove the defect. Ultimately by March, 2019, the AC completely stopped its cooling power, so the Complainant over her mobile to the OP No. 1 against which in the month of April 2019 the OP took back the PCB from the AC for repairing, in consequence the Complainant remained without AC till it was repaired and installed by June 2019, still the AC was not properly cooling. Again in February 2020, complaint was made over mobile phone as the AC stopped to function against which a compliance came through SMS, saying, “Dear customer, your call No. 800779942 is being reassigned to the technician for the product Daikin SAC 1.5T 3 SINV FTKH50S, will attend to it on date 09.03.2020. For more information call us on 18008891044 or email at
2. The OPs are set ex-parte.
3. Several times complaint made but the O.Ps failed to bring the AC to running condition with proper cooling. Due to manufacturing defect within the warranty period problems came. It is also not challenged by the O.Ps. Hence the AC purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant and the OPs are not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period.

Accordingly issues are settled.

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the OPs?
2. Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs ?
3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant a consumer of the OPs?

The Complainant has purchased DAIKIN FTKH50S inveter Split Air Conditioner, i.e. SAC 1.5T 3SINV from the OP No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 41,990/- and the OP No. 2 is the head office of the OP No. 1. So the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

          Issue No. 2  Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs ?

The AC purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant and the OPs are not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period. It is the duty of the OP to solve the problem. So the OPs are responsible for deficiency in service.

Issue No. 2 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

From all the facts of the case, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OPs.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on merit. The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 41,990/- toward cost of the AC to the Complainant or replace the DAIKIN SAC 1.5T 3SINV FTKH50S inverter Split Air Conditioner with a new one, Rs. 30,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 15^th day of May, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.