Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/293/2021

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Electrical & Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Verma

21 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    293 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         30.09.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 21.06.2022

 

Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Joginder Singh, r/o H.No.1809/12, Kalyan Nagar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Arvind Electronic & Electronic, 457/7, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its Proprietor/Owner.
2. Sukhmani Aircon, Daikin Authorized Service provider, #9, Jaggi Garden, near Sukghi Property Dealer, Ambala City.
3. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., SP2-12 to SP2-15 & SP2-24 to SP2-27 RIICO New Industrial Complex (Majrakath) Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan-301705, through its authorized person.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Vishal Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte, vide orders dated 13.12.2021                     and 28.01.2022 respectively.

                   Shri Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased 1.5 Ton, 5 star Split Inverter Air Conditioner brand Daikin from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.3, vide Invoice No.138 dated 07.06.2021 for Rs.43,000/- with 24 months warranty regarding fee from any defect and additional warranty of 10 years on its compressor. The said AC was installed at the residential house of the complainant at H.No.94, Parshuram Nagar, Opp. Manoj Bakery, Ambala City. The said AC was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning, as it creates loud noise while working. He lodged complaint on 30.06.2021 with OP No.2 vide complaint No.1888 dated 30.06.2021. The matter was brought to the knowledge of OP No.1 and on its customer care also and OP No.2 sent an engineer to check the said, who told that there is manufacturing defect in the AC and OP No.1 will replace the same, but despite his repeated requests, the OPs neither set right the AC nor replaced the same with new one, due to which, he almost passed the summer season 2021 without using the AC. In this regard, he served a legal notice upon the OPs through his advocate on 18.08.2021, but inspite of that, OPs failed to redress his grievance, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon receipt of complaint, its notices were ordered to be sent to the OPs. On receipt of notice of complaint, OP No.3 appeared before this Commission and filed its reply, whereas, OPs No.1 & 2 failed to appear before this Commission, despite receipt of respective notice of this Commission and was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte by this Commission, vide orders dated 13.12.2021 and 28.01.2022 respectively.

4.                OP No.3, in its written statement admitted selling of AC in question to the complainant on 09.06.2021. It is further stated that the complainant registered complaint pertaining to outdoor unit of the AC alleging noise problem, the technician of OP No.3 duly attended the complainant and found there was no noise issue in the outdoor unit of the AC, which was as per standards. The AC was working perfectly fine. However, the complainant refused to sign the job sheet. The OP No.3 provided replacement of outdoor unit of the AC as a gesture of good will for the satisfaction of the complainant. In order to resolve the issue faced by the complainant, on receiving the complaint, OP No.3 requested the complainant to provide convenient time to check the AC unit, however, the complainant did not cooperate with the technicians. Further, the complainant did not allow OP no.3 to click any pictures or record any details of the AC unit. From this, it is evident that the complainant had complete knowledge as to the working condition of the AC unit that it is working perfectly fine and did not have any sound issues. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

5.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed its evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased 1.5 Ton, 5 star Split Inverter Air Conditioner brand Daikin from OP No.1 for Rs.43,000/- and installed the same at his residential house at Ambala City. It is further argued that the said AC was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning, as it creates loud noise while working. In this regard, the complainant lodged complaint on 30.06.2021 with OP No.2 vide complaint No.1888 dated 30.06.2021, upon which, OP No.2 sent an engineer to check the said, who told that there is manufacturing defect in the AC and OP No.1 will replace the same, but despite his repeated requests, the OP No.3 neither set right the AC nor replaced the same with new one. In this regard, he served a legal notice upon the OPs through his advocate on 18.08.2021, but inspite of that, OPs failed to redress his grievance, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He further argued that now the complainant has been transferred from Ambala and as such, the AC in question is lying unused at the premises of complainant i.e. at Kurukshetra.

9.                The learned counsel for OPs argued that it is admitted that the complainant purchased an AC from the OPs. He further argued that the complainant registered complaint pertaining to outdoor unit of the AC alleging noise problem, the technician of OP No.3 duly attended the complainant and found there was no noise issue in the outdoor unit of the AC, which was as per standards. The AC was working perfectly fine. He further argued that the complainant refused to sign the job sheet. The OP No.3 provided replacement of outdoor unit of the AC as a gesture of good will for the satisfaction of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

10.              There is no dispute between the parties that on 09.06.2021, the complainant purchased the AC in question from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.43,000/-, vide bill Ex.C-2.

11.              The grievance of the complainant is that the AC was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning, as it created loud noise while working. In this regard, on 30.06.2021, he lodged a complaint with OP No.2, vide complaint No.1888 dated 30.06.2021, but the OPs failed to redress his grievance. Whereas, on the other hand, OP No.3 contended that on the complaint of complainant, its technician checked the AC and not found any fault, but as a good gesture, they changed the Outdoor Unit and the AC was working perfectly fine, as such, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.3.

12.              To support his contentions, the complainant produced job-sheet dated 24.06.2021 as Ex.C-6 on the case file, wherein, in column “Date of Repair Work”, it is mentioned “Compressor Fault” and in the column “Service Engineer Remarks”, there is mentioned “AC working not Ok”. The complainant further produced job-sheet dated 30.06.2021 as Ex.C-7 on the case file, wherein, in column “Date of Repair Work”, there is mentioned serial number of new Outdoor Unit. The complainant further produced copy of legal notice dated 16.08.2021 issued to the OPs as Ex.C-8.

13.              So, from the perusal of above documentary evidence produced by the complainant himself, we found that the complainant purchased the AC in question on 09.06.2021 and lodged the complaint regarding noise in it during working from the very beginning, and on 24.06.2021, engineer of OP No.2 checked the unit and reported “Compressor fault” and “AC working not ok”, vide job-sheet Ex.C-6. Thereafter, the OPs changed the outdoor unit of the AC, vide job-sheet dated 30.06.2021 Ex.C-7 and this fact was also admitted by the OPs. But the problem in the AC could not be rectified. Despite repeated requests made by the complainant, when the OPs No.1 & 3 failed to redress his grievance, either, by rectifying the defect of the AC or by replacing the AC with new, the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.C-8 upon the OPs, but despite that they failed to redress his grievance.       

14.               Needless to mention here that learned counsel for OP No.3 contended that on checking the AC in question, its engineer found no fault in it and as a good gesture, they replaced the Outdoor unit of the AC, but it is pertinent to mention here that when there was no fault in the AC in question, then why on 30.06.2021, OP No.3 changed its Outdoor Unit with new one, after only 21 days from the date of purchase of said AC, meaning thereby, the AC in question was having a manufacturing defect from the very beginning, as alleged by the complainant. Moreover, the OP No.3 failed to prove on the case file by leading any documentary evidence that even after changing the Outdoor Unit of the AC, the AC was working OK. The engineer/OP No.2, who checked the AC and replaced the Outdoor Unit, had not appeared before this Commission to clarify that after changing the said Outdoor unit, the working of the AC was fine, which also goes in favour of the complainant. In support to his contentions, the complainant produced his duly sworn affidavit as Ex.CW1/A along with documentary evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, whereas, on the other hand, the OP No.3 failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence in order to support its contentions made into their reply. The complainant purchased the AC in question on 09.06.2021 and the OPs changed its Outdoor Unit on 30.06.2021 i.e. only after 21 days of purchase of the AC, meaning thereby, the AC became defective from the very beginning and as such, definitely, there was having a manufacturing defect in it.

15.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the AC in question became defective from the very beginning from its purchase, but the said defect could not be rectified even after changing the Outdoor Unit of the AC by OPs, meaning thereby, the AC was suffering from some manufacturing/patent defect. Moreover, despite repeated requests made by the complainant to OPs No.1 & 3, they failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, either, to rectify the defect of the AC or replace the same with new one, which is an act of gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 3, due to which, the complainant suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss without any fault on his part. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund the cost price of the AC in question, along with compensation and litigation expenses from OPs No.1 & 3. Throughout the complaint, complainant has not specifically alleged any act of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 nor did it prove, therefore, complaint qua OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.    

16.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 3 and dismiss the same against OP No.2. We direct the OPs No.1 & 3 to refund the amount of Rs.43,000/- i.e. cost price of AC in question (as shown in bill Ex.C-2) to the complainant, subject to return the old AC in question, to OPs No.1 & 3, by the complainant. OPs No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practise on their part along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs No.1 & 3 are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the claim amount of Rs.43,000/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 71/72 of the Act, against OPs No.1 & 3. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:21.06.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.