Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/694/2015

B.K Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.S. Jagdeva Adv.

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	694 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	04.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	18.07.2016

 

 

 

 

 

B.K.Verma s/o Sh.Krishan Chand, Aged 62 years, R/o H.No.1180, Sector 26, Panchkula, Haryana.  

 

             Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, 1^st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Institutional Areas, Sector 32, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana.

 

2]  Pinky Radios, through its Proprietor, SCO No.369, Sector 35, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Chandla Air Conditioning, Shop No.708-A, Kesho Ram Complex, Opposite Sukh Gas Service, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

   

 Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.N.S.Jagdeva, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Gunjan Rishi, Counsel for Opposite Party-1.

OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant on 13.1.2015 purchased one Carrier Split Air Condition System Model Novello plus 1.5 Ton, Three Stars, from Opposite Party NO.2, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, for Rs.39,000/- including VAT, after getting it financed from Bajaj Financer (Ann.C-1).  The said AC was installed by the Engineer of Opposite Party Company (Ann.C-2).  The said AC was having 5 years warranty i.e. one year on complete AC and 4 years on the compressor of the AC (Ann.C-3). It is averred that the AC was installed during the winter season and the complainant started using it in June, 2015.  It is also averred that after using the AC for some days, the complainant felt that it was not giving adequate cooling, hence made complaint on 17.6.2015 with Opposite Party No.2, whereupon the connector of the AC was replaced by the Engineer of the OP, who issued a Job Card dated 18.6.2015 in this regard (Ann.C-4). It is averred that further a similar complaint was lodged with OP No.2 on 3.7.2015 regarding the non-effectiveness of the A.C., which again was attended to and it was declared as OK, but the complainant put a remark “Under Observation” on the Job Card dated 3.7.2015 (Ann.C-5).  It is also averred that again on 20.7.2015, a complaint of inadequate cooling of the AC was lodged and when the OPs failed to rectify the defect, they recommended for the replacement of compressor of the AC and resultantly, on 21.7.2015, the compressor of the AC was replaced and again remarks “Under Observation” was given by the complainant on the Job Card dated 21.7.2015 (Ann.C-6).  It is submitted that even after the replacement of the compressor, there was no proper cooling for which again a complaint on 21.8.2015 was lodged (Ann.C-7), which was attended on 24.8.2015 (Ann.C-9) and again on a complaint dated 26.8.2015, the gas was filled in the AC in order to rectify the defect.  It is also submitted that once again for the non-functioning of the AC, a complaint was lodged on 1.9.2015, which was attended and again gas was filled in the AC (Ann.C-11).  However, on account of persistent defects as well as on the request of the complainant, the said AC was replaced on 18.9.2015. It is further submitted that surprisingly, the replaced AC too failed to give the adequate cooling and thus a complaint was   made, which was attended to by the OPs on 22.9.2015 and their Engineer declared it as OK without rectifying the defect.  It is pleaded that the OPs on their own, checked the AC and dismantled the pipe lines of the AC in a bid to rectify/improve its cooling (Ann.C-13). The complainant claimed that as the engineers themselves were not satisfied with the cooling level, so they made the necessary changes.  It is also pleaded that the AC is having some inherent manufacturing defect, as a result it is not giving proper cooling. It is asserted that the complainant has called for certain standard technical data of the AC, which included temperature reduction capacity i.e. differential amount of Temperature in room and at the grill of the AC when run; the temperature of outer unit etc., but the said data was not provided, which shows that the OPs tried to hide the details of the defects in their product.  Hence, alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply and admitted the sale of the AC in question, its repair and its replacement with new one.  It is stated that the complaints lodged by the complainant were promptly attended to.  It is submitted that first unit of AC, purchased by the complainant was installed in his living room, which is 270 sq. feet in size and it had been explained to the complainant that an AC of 1.5 Ton of capacity is suitable for room size of maximum 150 sq. ft. It is submitted that the complainant was advised to install an AC of higher capacity in his living room, but the complainant did not pay any heed and demanded replacement. It is also submitted that the AC was replaced with new one, only as a good will gesture, on 18.9.2015, of the same make and model. It is pleaded that the allegations of the complainant that the replaced AC too failed to give proper cooling in the room wherein it was installed, is due to the large room size.  It is argued that neither the first unit nor the subject unit of AC suffered or suffers from any defect, as alleged by the complainant on a number of occasions.  The Opposite Party No.1 had informed the complainant that the subject units, if installed in a 270 sq. ft. room would not give the desired cooling and that even 2 ton will be inadequate for such size of room. It is denied that the AC in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect.  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party NO.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP No.2 after initially putting in appearance through Sh.S.D.Gakhar, Proprietor, did not turn up thereafter, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 9.3.2016. 

         The Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. post, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 19.1.2016.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting that of the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as written arguments.

 

6]       Admittedly, the complainant on 13.1.2015 purchased one Carrier Split Air Condition System Model Novello plus 1.5 Ton, Three Stars, from Opposite Party NO.2, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, for Rs.39,000/- including VAT. The installation of the said AC by the Engineer of the OP Company is also not in dispute.  As the AC was installed during the winter season, so when it was put in use in the month of June, 2015, it was felt that the said AC was not giving adequate cooling. The complainant made a complaint in this regard on 17.6.2015 for the first time with OP No.2 and the connector of the AC was replaced by the Engineer of the OP, who issued a Job Card dated 18.6.2015 in this regard (Ann.C-4).  Further, a similar complaint was filed with OP No.2 on 3.7.2015 regarding the same issue of non-effectiveness of the AC, which again was attended to and was declared as OK, but the complainant put a remark “under observation” on the Job Card dated 3.7.2015 (Ann.C-5).  Again on 20.7.2015 a complaint of inadequate cooling of the AC was lodged and when the OPs failed to rectify the defect, recommended for the replacement of compressor of the AC. As a result, on 21.7.2015, the compressor of the AC was replaced and again remarks “Under Observation” was given by the complainant on the Job Card dated 21.7.2015 (Ann.C-6) that even after the replacement of the compressor, there was no proper cooling for which again a complaint on 21.8.2015 was lodged, which was attended on 24.8.2015 and again on a complaint dated 26.8.2015, the gas was filled in the AC in order to rectify the defect.  Again for the non-functioning of the AC, a complaint was lodged on 1.9.2015, which was attended and again gas filling was done.  For the persistent defect, the complainant requested the OPs to replace the AC and accepting the request of the complainant, the said AC was replaced on 18.9.2015. Strangely, the replaced AC too failed to give the adequate cooling and complaint made was attended to by the OPs on 22.9.2015 by the Engineers of the OPs, who declared it as ‘OK’ without rectifying the defect.  It is submitted that thereafter the OPs on their own, checked the AC and dismantled the pipe lines of the AC in a bid to rectify/improve its cooling (Ann.C-13).  The complainant claimed that as the engineers themselves were not satisfied with the cooling level, so they made the necessary changes.  Claimed that the AC is having some inherent manufacturing defect, due to which no proper cooling is there.  The complainant claimed that he has called for certain standard technical data of the AC, which included temperature reduction capacity i.e. differential amount of Temperature in room and at the grill of the AC when run; the temperature of outer unit etc. The said data was not provided, which shows that the OPs tried to hide the details of the defects in their product and made a prayer for refund of the invoice price. 

 

7]       It is argued on behalf of the Opposite Parties that the first unit purchased by the complainant was installed in his living room, which is 270 sq. feet room in size and it had been explained to the complainant that an AC of 1.5 Ton of capacity is suitable for room size of maximum 150 sq. ft. and advised the complainant to installed an AC of higher capacity in his living room. However, paying no heed to the advice by the complainant, the complainant insisted for the replacement of the AC, which as a good will gesture, was replaced with new one on 18.9.2015 with the same make and model. The Opposite Parties claimed that the allegations of the complainant that the replaced AC too failed to give proper cooling  in the room wherein it was installed, is owing to the large size of room.  It is argued that neither the first unit nor the subject unit of AC suffered or suffers from any defect, as alleged by the complainant and the OPs had informed the complainant that the subject units, if installed in a 270 sq. ft. room would not give the desired cooling and that an even 2 ton will be inadequate for such size of room. It is also argued that the complaints lodged by the complainant were promptly attended too.  Denying any manufacturing defect in the
AC Unit, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8]       Considering the submissions of the parties and after going through the record, it is clear that the complainant purchased one Carrier Split Air Condition System Model Novello Plus 1.5 Yon-Three Stars Rating, from OP No.2, which did not function properly and got serviced on numerous occasions, whereby the compressor as well as the connector of the AC was changed and the gas has also been filled twice.  It is further clear that despite numerous repairs, the AC purchased by the complainant failed to give the desired cooling, then the said unit was replaced with new AC of the same make & model by OPs. Unfortunately, the subsequent AC installed in place of earlier one, too did not function well and it also failed to give the cooling effectively and a complaint was duly lodged with the OPs for the same.  The Engineers of the OPs attended the complaint and while repairing the AC, they dismantled the pipe lines of the AC, in order to improve its cooling, but despite the said repair, again the AC failed to function properly and another complaint was lodged with the OPs.

 

9]       Being not satisfied with the functioning of the AC, the complainant claimed for the refund of invoice price spent on the AC, to which the OPs paid no heed.  The only defence putforth by the OPs is that the AC of 1.5 ton capacity, is not meant to cool a bigger room having covered area of around 270 sq. ft. They claimed that 1.5 Ton AC has the capacity to cool the room of having 150 sq. ft. area.  Denying any manufacturing defect in the AC, the OPs have claimed that since the complainant installed the AC in a bigger room against their advice, it failed to give the desired cooling and for such, the fault lies only with the complainant.  In our opinion, this defence of the OP No.1 is not corroborated by any cogent evidence on record, as nothing in the form of guidelines or specification of the company have been placed on record by OP NO.1 wherefrom it can be gathered that as to what capacity of AC is recommended for what size of the room area and that the AC having capacity of 1.5 Ton is sufficient to cool a particular size of the room.   It is further observed that the AC installed on the first instance was admittedly repaired on numerous dates and not even on a single Job Card, the Engineers of the OP Company have reported that due to the bigger size of the room, the AC of 1.5 Ton failed to give the desired cooling.  The things which could have been observed at the first instance have either been ignored or not noticed by the Engineers of the OP Company, for the simple reason that a proper AC was installed in the particular size of room.  Further the subsequent AC installed too failed to give the effective cooling which reveals that there must be inherent manufacturing defect in that particular model of the AC.  No affidavit of any Engineer of the OP has been placed on record to substantiate their defence that the AC in question is not adequate to cool the room of the complainant being bigger in size nor the OPs placed on record the standard technical data of the AC, as demanded by the complainant, which proves the assertions of the complainant as true that Opposite Parties tried to hide the details of the defects in their product. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved. 

 

10]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved.  Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the OPs and the OPs are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

[a] To refund an amount of Rs.39,900/- being the invoice price of AC in question;

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.7000/- as compensation to the complainant;

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. 

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from paying the litigation expenses.

 

11]      However, the OPs shall collect the old AC from the premises of the complainant at their own expenses, only after making the payment of awarded amount to the complainant.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

18^th July, 2016                                                                             Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER