STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 321 of 2016 |
Date of Institution | : | 30.11.2016 |
Date of Decision | : | 27.02.2017 |
Amit Ajmani son of Sh. S.P. Ajmani, R/o H.No.3047, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh
……Appellant
V E R S U S
(1) Carrier Midea India Pvt. Limited, 1st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 through its Managing Director.
(2) Carrier Midea India Pvt. Limited, SCO 264, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh – 160035, through its Regional Manager.
(3) Pinky Radios, SCO 369, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.
…….Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Mr.Amit Ajmani, appellant in person.
Mr.Gunjan Rishi,Advocate for respondents No.1&2
(Respondent No 3 ex parte)
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 19.9.2016, vide which a complaint bearing No.404/2015 filed by him was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for short ‘the Forum’ only).
2. As per admitted facts on record, the complainant purchased a Carrier Split Air Conditioner of 1.5 Ton capacity for an amount of Rs.49,500/- on 30.6.2014 from OP No.3. It was carrying warranty of 12 months. The said Air Conditioner was installed on 1.7.2014. Its functioning was not proper. The matter was reported to Respondent No.3/OP No.3. A technician sent by OP No.2 visited house of the complainant and on 30.5.2015 gave a report “gas leakage”. Gas was refilled. Thereafter, on starting the AC, it was giving good cooling. Satisfactory note was signed by the complainant. However, on the very next day, cooling was very less, virtually negligible. Again the matter was reported to OPs on 1.6.2015, 10.6.2015 and 19.6.2015 but the Service Engineer of OPs failed to bring the cooling of AC upto the desired standard. He made a wrong report that the AC was working OK. The complainant ultimately requested to replace the AC or in the alternative to refund the invoice price but to no effect. Compelled under these circumstances, he filed a consumer complaint.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. OP No.3 was proceeded against ex parte. In their reply, OPs No.1 & 2 took many preliminary objections. It was stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the unit. The AC had worked nearly for one year. When complaint was made, service engineer visited the site and found that there was gas leakage. Thereafter, the AC was found working OK. The grouse raised by the complainant was just imaginary.
4. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, came to the conclusion that there was no manufacturing defect in the AC unit and the complaint was dismissed.
5. After hearing the appellant and Counsel for respondents, in appeal, we are of the opinion that finding given by the Forum was not justified. It is on record that to prove his case, the complainant brought on record a report of technician dated 15.6.2016 (Annexure C-16) to show that the AC was not giving proper cooling. We have perused the contents of that report. It is specifically mentioned therein that ‘grill temperature’ was not perfect. For checking AC, through that technician, an amount of Rs.345/- was paid, receipt was placed on record as Annexure C-17. The said report has been ignored by the Forum simply by saying that it was given by a private person. To check the cooling by using an instrument, highly qualified person is not needed. Cooling can be checked even by a customer himself on available devices. No doubt, service report has been signed by the complainant stating that functioning of the AC was OK. It was stated at the time of arguments that service report was signed because at the time of repair, cooling was good. However, thereafter it was not up to the standard level. We feel that a customer will not raise any grievance unless he is really troubled by the product purchased. An Air Conditioner is generally purchased with a hope that it will last for more than a decade. In the present case, gas leaked within one year, which clearly shows that there was some defect in the AC, if not manufacturing defect. Complainant was unnecessarily harassed. Repair should have been effected to his satisfaction. We may have ordered replacement of the AC unit but we are refraining from doing so because report placed on record does not indicate that there was any manufacturing defect in the unit purchased. We are of the view that ends of justice would meet if we grant a lumpsum compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant.
6. Accordingly this appeal is accepted and the order passed by the Forum is set aside. Consequently complaint is partly allowed in terms of order, as above. Respondents/Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.15000/- to the appellant/complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount will start fetching simple interest @ 10% p.a. till the time of making its payment.
7. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
8. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
27.02.2017
