BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 119 of 2016                                                                        

                                                             Date of Institution         :    6.5.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    16.12.2016. 

Deepak Soni aged about 33 years son of Shri Des Raj, resident of Gali No.4, Khanna Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Anand Udyog, Janta Bhawan Road, Opp. Old Stadium, Sirsa through its Proprietor (Authorized Dealer of Daikin Company)

2. Daikin Air Conditioner India Pvt. Limited, F-25/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.

 ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………..PRESIDENT

                   SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……. MEMBER.     

Present:       Sh. Inderjit Singh,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. J.N. Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

        Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

          Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Daikin three star air conditioner of 1.5 ton for a sum of Rs.35,500/- from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.5261 dated 7.5.2015 after availing loan facility from Bajaj Finserv Finance Ltd. The op no.1 had given guarantee of one year of any defect and five years warranty against the compressor. The air conditioner after short time of its purchase was giving trouble as its cooling is very less and gives much noise. The complainant approached op no.1 in this regard who put off the matter by saying that as and when the Engineer of company would visit, the problems will be got checked from him and in case of any manufacturing defect, the same will be replaced and the complainant made many visits to his shop. Thereafter on regular visits and insistence of complainant, op no.1 just to pacify him sent his mechanic who noticed the less cooling and noise and confirmed the manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. But despite that ops have failed to redress his grievance despite several requests and visits and despite assurances. In the last week of April, 2016, complainant again approached to op no.1 and requested for replacement of air conditioner as the summer season has started but this time op no.1 rebuked the complainant and stated that no replacement will be done. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and admitted the sale of air conditioner in question to complainant in his written statement but denied the remaining allegations of the complaint. It has been submitted that no date of any such defect or low voltage was ever pointed out orally or in writing. The complainant also did not make any complaint regarding noise of air conditioner. No expert opinion was obtained in the presence of answering op. Manufacturing defect, if any is found or proved, then op no.2 is liable for the same.

3.                OP no.2 in its separate written statement took several preliminary objections. On merits, it has been submitted that op no.2 duly attended the complaint calls of the complainant and at each instances necessary service was provided to the complainant. The warranty of the said air conditioner has expired as it was purchased on 30.4.2015 and warranty expired on 29.4.2016. Inspite of that, technicians of op no.2 immidately visited the premises of complainant as and when they received any complaint from him. On inspection, it was detected that the said air conditioner is installed at the cloth shop of complainant having large area for which the air conditioner bought by complainant is under tonnage i.e. for the specified area and he should have opted for more tonnage air conditioner. As per the service report of op no.2, there was no shortcoming in the air conditioner and it suffers with no defect at all. The technicians of op no.2 also informed the complainant about the under tonnage, however, he kept on insisting either for refund or for replacement of air conditioner.

4.                The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of no objection certificate of Bajaj Finserv Ex.C3. OP no.1 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A. OP no.2 produced affidavit Ex.RW2/A, copy of warranty card Ex.R1 and regular job card dated 20.5.2016 Ex.R2.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully. Written arguments on behalf of op no.2 have also been filed which have been perused.   

6.                There is no dispute that complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question from op no.1 on 7.5.2015. In so far as allegations of complainant is concerned, from the job card dated 20.5.2016 Ex.R2 it is evident that air conditioner in question was got inspected by the opposite party no.2 through its Service Engineer who reported that unit works very well but area is too large. There is no other expert opinion placed on file by the complainant to prove any defect in the air conditioner. As such, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to establish the allegations of the complaint regarding defects in the AC. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated: 16.12.2016.                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.