| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 360 of 15.9.2017 Decided on: 9.4.2018 Amarpal Singh S/o Surjit Singh R/o # 522/1, MIG, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., Carrier Aircon Limited, Village-Narsingpur, Delhi-Jaipur-Highway, Gurgaon, Haryana, Manufacturer of Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd. through its Director.
- P G Sales, 3266/1, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala-147001.( Dealer of Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd.), through its Director/Proprietor Mr.Pritpal Singh.
- PNK Services C/o Aggarwal & company, Inside Sheranwala Gate, Patiala.(service centre of Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd.) through its Director/Service Center Head: Mr.Kulbhushan Chabra & Mr.Virendra Yadav.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Amarpal Singh, complainant in person. Opposite Parties No. 1to 3 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER The brief the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Carrier Split Air Conditioner, Kurve Model No.SCA/12012470118, Invertor technology on 9.5.2013 from Op no.2 on payment of Rs.34500/- plus Rs.2000/- for extra copper pipe and Rs.2500/- for installation of the said AC, totaling Rs.39000/. During installation of the impugned AC, the mechanic handled the units very roughly as a result of which the gas from AC leaked but the mechanic welded the same at it was. After installation, when the mechanic switched on the AC to check the cooling, there was sparking & noise and also some bad smell came out from outdoor unit.But the mechanic said that it was normal. Thereafter the complainant went out of station and after coming back he noticed that the A.C. was not working properly. The complainant lodged a complaint on Carrier care number 180030111111 on 4.6.2013 vide complaint No.91110828. The company executive assured the complainant that the complaint would be dealt within 24 hours but the OPs closed the complaint without any intimation .The complainant again got registered complaint No.1391169 on 6.6.2013 but no one came to check the AC. Then complainant sent a mail to customer care, i.e. Op no.1 on 13.7.2013. A technician came and checked the AC and told that there was insufficient gas in ACand also some parts of the A.C.were not working. After 3-4 days, the mechanic came and repaired the AC but still the cooling was not effective..The complainant again sent an e-mail to customer care on 15.7.2013 but no body came to repair the AC.There was also some error shown on the display of the AC. The said problem also could not be rectified by the mechanics/technicians deputed by the OPs. It is stated that the complainant made repeated requests for the rectification of the defects. The mechanics and technicians checked the AC time and again but could not rectify the defect, which shows that the AC was having some inherent manufacturing defect . The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986 with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to replace the above said air conditioner with the new one or to refund the entire amount of Rs.39500/-; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also to grant any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.
ultimately he approached this Forum . On being put to notice OPs did not appear despite service and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. - In order to prove the case, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his own affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C13 and closed the evidence.
We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one A.C. from Op no.2 for a sum of Rs.34,500/-.Ex.C11 is the warranty card, vide which the compressor of the said A.C. was under five years warranty. Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 are the e-mails exchanges dated 12,7,2013, 15.7.2013 and 22.7.2013 between the complainant and the OP No.1. Ex.C5 & Ex.C10 are also the e-mails dated 6.7.2017 ,8.7.2017,13.7.2017, 14.7.2017 and 25.7.2017.As per Ex.C11, the compressor of the A.C. in question was under five years warranty and the OPs were bound to rectify the same but they failed to do so and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant against OPs No.1&3 as Op no.2 is merely a seller, to rectify the problem in the compressor of the A.C.free of cost and if that is not possible to replace the compressor of the A.C. with a new one with requisite warranty,since it is within warranty. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs No.1&3 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:9.4.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
