BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 270 of 2016
Date of Institution : 5.10.2016
Date of Decision : 9.2.2018
Rishi Kumar son of Sh. Ranbir Singh, aged about 38 years, resident of Old Civil Hospital Road, 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. Ltd., F-25/2, Okhla Industrial Aria, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
3 Bajaj Finserv Ltd., Dharam Satya Plaza, Opposite Old Suraj Cinema, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Subhash Chander, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.N. Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant is customer of the opposite party no.1 and purchased one Daikin Air Conditioner (AC) bearing model no.5 Star 1.5 T against the payment of Rs.40,000/- and op no.1 issued the Bill/Invoice no.5048 dated 17.4.2015. The complainant purchased the said air conditioner by availing the loan facility from op no.3 ie. Bajaj finserv Limited and at the time of purchase of air conditioner, the ops had given guarantee of three years. It is further averred that soon after the purchase of the above said Air Conditioner, the said AC started giving trouble to the complainant as the AC stopped cooling and there was much noise while in operation. The complainant on detecting the above said defects, immediately approached the op no.1 and complained about the defects therein, but the op no.1, simply put off the complainant saying that as and when the authorized engineer of the company/op no.2 would visit, the problem/defect will be got checked and if he found any manufacturing defect, the A.C. will be replaced and the op no.1 with this buttering assurance put the complainant to make time to time visits to their shop. Thereafter, on regular visits and insistence of the complainant, the op no.1 just to pacify the complainant sent his own mechanic who noticed the less cooling and noise in the air conditioner and on detecting these defects, he confirmed the manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. Thereafter, the complainant requested the op no.1 to replace the above said defective AC with new one but the op no.1 suggested to lodge complaint with the op no.2 and stated that he will replace the AC only on the directions of the op no.2. Then the complainant lodged complaint with regard to above said defects in AC and one engineer of the company verified the manufacturing defects in the above said air conditioner and assured the complainant to replace the same in a week or two. The complainant also approached the op no.3 for replacing the said defective air conditioner but all in vain. The ops started putting off the complainant with one pretext or the other. The complainant again visited the op no.1 along with some respectable of the area and in their presence also the op no.1 repeated the same buttering assurances, but on protest of the complainant and respectable, the op no.1 refused to replace the same in the month of July, 2016. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is wrong and incorrect to say that op no.1 gave any guarantee of any kind of defect in AC or three years warranty against compressor, rather it is to be given by op no.2 company. 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 sound/noise of the AC. No complaint was ever made to op no.1. No expert opinion was obtained in the presence of the answering op. Manufacturing defect, if any is found or proved, then op no.2 is liable for the same.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement also took certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.2 does not provide guarantee of the product and only provides warranty and that too subject to terms and conditions of the warranty card. The op no.2 has made it very clear that the initial warranty period shall not extend beyond the period of 12 months in any case and for making it apparent, op no.2 has mentioned about initial warranty period at various instances in warranty card. Neither op no.1 nor op no.2 provided/ conveyed about the extended warranty. The AC in question was purchased through finance facility from Bajaj Finserv Limited and extended warranty of two years was provided by Bajaj Finserv Limited as part of promotional or other sales activity. It is further submitted that the customer approached op no.1 for purchase of 1.5 TR AC unit. Upon this, as practice, op no.1 asked customer about the area so that appropriate tonnage product could be suggested. The complainant told that AC to be purchased shall be installed in a salon with approximate size of 20 feet x 20 feet. Then op no.1 told the customer that AC with 1.5 TR will not be appropriate and sufficient for such area and guided him to buy AC with more tonnage. Upon this, the complainant told op no.1 that he is also using Voltas make AC in his workplace. He also told op no.1 that the need to buy additional unit arises only because the Voltas make AC unit is not able to cool the entire area and that by using both the units simultaneously he will be getting desired room temperature for making ambient environment for his customers. It is further submitted that after installing the said AC, complainant was taking benefit of the same and was very satisfied with the performance of the AC unit. It is denied that the attending technician confirmed about the manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. It is pertinent to mention here that as a process, whenever a service call/complaint is registered a complaint number is generated and a service completion report is prepared with appropriate remarks. The complainant to substantiate his version of complaint failed to put on record any conclusive evidence where the attending technician has made a remark as to any manufacturing defect. The complainant was provided all the regular maintenance service during the initial warranty period and at that time the attending technician did not find any issue in the cooling as complainant was using both the AC at that time. The complainant first registered his service call/ complaint after expiry of initial warranty period on 27.5.2016. That upon attending, the complainant never stated anything about the installed AC and was satisfied with the performance of the same. The technician serviced the unit and found no issue in the working of AC. The technician noticed that the complainant was using only one “Daikin Make” AC unit for cooling his area. Upon this technician informed the complainant that the issue of low cooling was on account of size of the room and that the AC unit is working properly. It is further submitted that the op no.2 does not provide any kind of guarantee of the product and only provides warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions. However, since in the present case there was no defect in the machine, no repair or replacement of any nature was required. Further replacement of complete machine was no where mentioned in the warranty card. Hence the demand of the complainant for replacement was not warranted for. It is pertinent to mention here that the AC of the complainant was working in perfect condition and was generating proper cooling. When the complainant registered his service call/complaint in the month of May, the same was attended on same day. Upon reaching the premises, technician found that complainant was using only Daikin AC unit. The technician told him that the AC is generating enough cooling, but it cannot reach/cover the entire area as it is too large and also on account of removal of other unit. The technician asked the complainant to either purchase other unit of 1.5 TR and run two units or only one unit with higher tonnage. As per Service Engineer Remarks on Customer Service Report (CSR) dated 27.5.2016, AC unit was working in perfect condition and that there was no problem in the unit. The remarks reads out as “Salon ka size 25* 18 hai. Joki 1.5 TR AC mein puri cooling nahi kar sakta. AC bilkul sahi hai.” The complainant once again registered his service call/complaint on 4.6.2016 which was attended on the same day. At this time also the AC unit was working in perfect condition. The technician again guided complainant to get another unit as the size of salon was so big than the capacity of the unit. The Remarks in this CSR reads as “AC ache se kaam kar raha hai. Parantu dukan ka area bahut bada hai. Ek AC itna thanda nahi kar pata”. The complainant once again registered his service call/ complaint on 27.6.2016 which was attended on the same day. The remarks in the CSR reads as “Service done and unit working very well but room size too large. Customer not satisfied and did not sign on job sheet.” Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.3 is not an agent of ops no.1 and 2. Thus, op no.3 being financer is not at all responsible or liable for vicarious liability. As such op no.3 has got nothing to do with the said transaction. Even nothing has been claimed/ sought against op no.3 by the complainant and answering op has unnecessarily been made a party.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill Ex.C2, whereas opposite party no.3 has tendered the affidavit of Ms. Shiwani Garg, authorized representative Bajaj Finance Ltd. Ex.R1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.R2. OP no.1 produced affidavit of Baldev Raj Ex.R3 and op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Anurag Misra Company Secretary and Compliance Officer Ex.R4, copy of warranty card Ex.R5 and copies of job cards Ex.R6 to Ex.R8.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased air conditioner for a sum of Rs.40,000/- from opposite party no.1 on 17.4.2015. It is also proved fact on record that air conditioner of the complainant started giving trouble to the complainant and it stopped cooling and there was much noise while in operation. The complaint was lodged with the op no.1 who sent its mechanic who checked and found less cooling and noise in the air conditioner.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that complainant wants replacement of the air conditioner with new one of same make and model without any cost but however complainant has failed to prove on record that air conditioner of the complainant suffers from some manufacturing defect. Rather it appears from the job cards dated 27.5.2016 Ex.R6, dated 4.6.2016 Ex.R7 and dated 27.6.2016 Ex.R8 that air conditioner was working properly but however the size of the room was big than the capacity of the air conditioner. But however, it is the legal obligation of the ops no.1 and 2 to carry out necessary repair in the air conditioner if same is required and to make proper functioning of the AC so as to give proper cooling. However, no relief of any kind against op no.3 has been sought and no liability of op no.3 is also made out.
9. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint against opposite parties no.1 and 2 and direct ops no.1 and 2 to send their mechanic at the place of installation of the air conditioner and to check the AC of the complainant and to carry out necessary repair and to make it defect free if same suffers from any defect even by replacing any part of the air conditioner without any cost within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found that same is not repairable, the ops no.1 and 2 shall be liable to give replacement of the air conditioner of the same make and model free of costs or in the alternate to make refund of the price of the air conditioner within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops no.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:9.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
