BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 113 of 2013
Date of Institution : 07.05.2013
Date of Decision : 29.9.2016
Pyare Lal Mittal (aged about 65 years) C/o Shri Radhe Dharam Kanta, 40-F, Industrial Area, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Anand Udyog, Janta Bhawan Road, Opposite old Stadium Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office, F-25/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its Senior Manager/ authorized signatory.
...…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.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.J.N.Monga, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased air conditioner Model No.RESOMV16EO16023 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.31,500/- through bill No.768 dated 4.6.2012. The op no.1 advised the complainant for installation of air conditioner through authorized engineer of the company. The engineer came to the premises of complainant and installed the same and charged Rs.1000/- as installation fee. The air conditioner functioned in a smooth manner for only 20 days and thereafter it stopped its cooling. On the complaint, the op no.1 sent mechanic of the company who disclosed that gas has spread over/ leaked from the joint on account of poor fitting. The son of the complainant requested to fill the cooling gas but mechanic referred the matter to op no.1 who after due obligation and with persistent request agreed to fill the gas. However, after few days the said problem occurred in the air conditioner. The opposite parties were requested many times either to remove the manufacturing defect or to replace the air conditioner being within guarantee period, but to no avail. Both the purposes of the complainant to get installed the air conditioner in order to get maximum cooling as proposed through three star rating facility and saving of electricity have been defeated. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, op no.1 filed written statement asserting that air conditioner was installed by the engineer of the company and not by the answering op. There might be some defect in the supply and fluctuation of the electricity in the house of complainant. The remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed its separate written statement asserting that air conditioner is not suffering from any kind of manufacturing defect. It is denied that the mechanic of ops failed to rectify the said fault. The complaint of the complainant was duly attended by the technician of ops and gas was filled upon the request of complainant even when there was no gas leakage. The gas was filled free of cost as a matter of good gesture on the same. The actual problem was the size of the room of the complainant which is approximately of 20’ x 15’ and is having 3 doors and many windows. The representative of op no.1 showed the test result of the air conditioner, the ambient temperature i.e. the temperature of the room air was 28 degree Celsius whereas the air conditioner was discharging the air at the temperature of 15 degree Celsius which clearly proves that the air conditioner is functioning in all respects in a perfect manner but the complainant did not agree with the views of the said representative and forced him to refill the gas. The main purpose of an AC is to intake the warm air and converts it into cool air. The AC cannot control other parameters viz. size of the room, outside heat like sun facing, cooling loss in the room, room occupied with people and electronic gadgets in the room emitting heat, doors or windows kept open or are opened again and again. There is no expert opinion that air conditioner is having manufacturing defect.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of his son Deepak Mittal Ex.C2, Bill Ex.C3 and copy of warrant card of Daikin air conditioner Ex.C4. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of op no.1 as Ex.R1, affidavit of Roopesh Jain, Company Secretary and compliance officer as Ex.R2.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove or to presume any manufacturing defect in the air conditioner purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1. In this regard, only his own affidavit and affidavit of his son are not, at all, sufficient to prove manufacturing defect in the A.C. To prove manufacturing defect, the complainant could have got the AC examined from some expert. But, he has not done so. Not only this, not even a single time, the AC was got examined/repaired from any mechanic or from any service centre. It is upon the complainant to prove that the A.C. has any manufacturing defect but he has failed to prove the same. The opposite party no.2 to prove the above said parameters disclosed in the written statement and to prove that air conditioner is OK has placed on file affidavit of Roopesh Jain, Company Secretary and Compliance Officer and job card dated 4.8.2012 which mentions that Unit is OK and there is no contrary evidence placed on file by the complainant to prove that air conditioner is not working properly.
7. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
