Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/404/2015

Amit Ajmani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subhash Chander Sharma

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/404/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	29/06/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	19/09/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Amit Ajmani son of Sh. S.P. Ajmani, R/o H.No.3047, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

(1)  Carrier Midea India Pvt. Limited, 1^st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 through its Managing Director.

 

(2)  Carrier Midea India Pvt. Limited, SCO 264, 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh – 160035, through its Regional Manager.

 

(3)  Pinky Radios, SCO 369, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

……………  Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties No.1 & 2	:	Sh. Amit Arora, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Carrier Spilt Air Conditioner of 1.5 Ton capacity for Rs.49,500/- vide invoice dated 30.06.2014 from Opposite Party No.3, carrying a warranty of twelve months. The said Air Conditioner was installed on 01.07.2014. It has been alleged that right from day one of its installation, the said Air Conditioner was not giving optimum cooling, on account of which frequent Complaints were lodged with the Opposite Parties. However, when even after servicing, filling of Gas and repeated attempts made by the Technicians of the Opposite Parties to set right the defect, the said Air Conditioner did not work to the satisfaction of the Complainant, he made a request dated 01.06.2015 to the Opposite Parties to either replace the Air Conditioner or in the alternative to refund the invoice price thereof. When the grievance of the Complainant has not been redressed, he has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Pursuant to the notice issued, Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 and the case was adjourned for filing their reply and evidence. However, subsequently neither the reply and evidence were filed nor anybody put appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2016.

 

4.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, have pleaded that the Air Conditioner was functioning properly from the very beginning. The Complainant had made the first Complaint on 29.05.2015 i.e. after using the said Air Conditioner seamlessly for nearly one year. Accordingly, on 4.6.2015 the Technician visited the Complainant and refilled the gas in the said Air Conditioner, free of cost, as per warranty terms. After the thorough examination, since the Air Conditioner was found to be working perfectly fine, therefore, the demand for the replacement of the said Air Conditioner by the Complainant was not acceded to by the answering Opposite Parties. Moreover, the answering Opposite Parties have at all times duly attended the Complaints/grievances of the Complainant, therefore they cannot be held liable for unfair trade practice. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.   

 

8.      It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the Complainant purchased one Carrier Spilt Air Condition from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.49,500/- on 30.06.2014 with warranty of 12 months. As per Annexure C-14 dated 01.07.2014, the said Air Conditioner was installed at the Complainant’s place. The allegation of the Complainant is that the product in question was not giving proper cooling, therefore, various Complaints were lodged with the Opposite Parties. However, even after filling of gas and various attempts made by the Technicians of the Opposite Parties, the Air Conditioner in question did not work to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Annexure C-4 dated 04.06.2015 is the job-sheet with the service conducted as full gas recharge. Thereafter, Annexure C-15 is another job-sheet dated 10.06.2015, according to which the cooling was checked and it was observed that the Air Conditioner was working properly.

 

9.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that the Air Conditioner was functioning properly and as & when the Complaint was lodged with the Opposite Parties, the defect reported was rectified under the warranty terms and conditions despite the reason that the same was used for about one year. It has been urged that since there is no manufacturing defect in the product in question, as alleged by the Complainant, therefore, they are not liable for any deficiency in service.

 

10.      The Opposite Party No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.

 

11.      After appraising the entire record, it is evident that as per Annexure C-4 job-sheet dated 04.06.2015 and Annexure C-15 job-sheet dated 10.6.2015 the defect in the product was reported after using the same approximately for one year. Importantly, both these documents are signed by the Complainant with the remarks of the Technician of the Opposite Parties that the cooling is going on properly and the Air Conditioner is working well. Pertinently, as per Annexure C-4 after testing the pressure, full gas recharge was done in the Unit.

 

12.      As far as the validity of the expert report dated 15.6.2016, produced on record by the Complainant in the shape of Annexure C-16 and C-17, to prove his case, is concerned, we feel that it has no rationality, and thus cannot be taken into consideration, in as much as the same has been given by a private person and not by any Govt./Authorized Body or Person. Moreover, neither the qualifications of the person, who has given the aforesaid expert report, nor his affidavit is available on file, in the absence of which also the expert cannot be believed as such. Needless of mention that the Air Conditioner in question was repaired by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, without charging anything, under the warranty conditions. Hence, it is safe to deduce that there is not even an iota of evidence that the Air conditioner in question is suffering from any defect, much less manufacturing defect. Thus we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

13.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th September, 2016                                              

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                                Sd/- 

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

Sd/-                       

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER