Haryana

Ambala

CC/272/2013

ASHOK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CARRIER MIDEA INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANUPAM SHARMA

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 272 of 2013

                                                          Date of Institution         : 17.10.2013

                                                          Date of decision   : 15.02.2017

          Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Chanda Lal aged 40 years resident of House No. 7,    Amika Vihar, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

1. Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd. 1^st floor, Peari Global tower Plot No. 51, Industrial Area, Sector -32, Gurgaon-122004, through its authorized signatory.
2. Angad Enterprises, 115, B-I Bazar, Ambala Cantt-133003, through its authorized signatory.

….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

Present:       Sh. Anupam Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Vig, counsel for Ops.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a split A.C. 1.5 TR, make carrier model KERVE, Sr. No. 500223219139012582 amount of Rs. 38,000/- vide bill No. 2109 dated 22.05.2013 with warranty for the manufacturing defect. The AC started giving problems from its very beginning i.e. leakage of the Gas and same was rectified by the OP but just after days the water started leaking from the dispenser of the A.C. and remote system of the AC also started giving trouble. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP but the OP failed to rectified the above defects and after several oral remainders the official of the OP visit the house of the complainant and after checking the AC, they told the complainant that several parts of the AC are required to be replaced. The above said AC has inherent manufacturing defects which cannot be rectified and as such the whole unit is required to be replaced. The complainant also made a complaint regarding                     non-working of AC regarding the registration of the compliant No. 91109088. Still the OP has failed to repair the above said AC. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement submitting that as the unit was in working condition at the time of delivery/installation, there is no question of replacing of the unit as is now being claimed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant is well conversant with the warranty terms and conditions, which were provided through the warranty card/user manual to the complainant. As per the terms of warranty, the warranty on the whole unit is for a period of one year from the date of purchase, which includes free of cost repairs or replacement of any part or parts of the unit proved to be defective in material and workmanship. The warrant on the compressor, following a one year comprehensive warranty is for four years, thus, making a warranty of five years on the compressor. It is reiterated that as per the terms of warranty, expendable items like refrigerant, overload, oil, strainer and other are excluded from the warrant and it also subject to use as set out in the warranty card and user manual. It is further submitted that water leakage can be due to many external factor like setting of water drain pipes and several other factor not under the control of answering OP and same cannot be attributed to the negligence on part of the dealer and the answering OP and cannot be ascribed the meaning of manufacturing defect. So, it is clear that under the terms of warranty the OP are liable to repair the subject unit and not to replace the entire unit or refund the cost of unit unless the same suffers from such type of defect, which cannot be rectified and the complainant filed complaint for water leakage on 05.07.2013 & 01.09.2013, which were duly attended and rectified by adjusting the slope of drain pipe on 09.07.2013 & 02.09.2013, respectively and there is no complaint is pending and the unit is working perfectly fine.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP has also tendered affidavits as Annexure R-X & R-Y alongwith with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that complainant had purchased a split A.C. 1.5 TR, make carrier model KERVE, Sr. No. 500223219139012582 amount of Rs. 38,000/- vide bill No. 2109 dated 22.05.2013 Annexure C-1 with warranty for the manufacturing defect. The AC started giving problems from its very beginning i.e. no cooling, leakage of the Gas, water leakage and remote problem. The OP has placed on record the job cards of various dated 09.07.2013, 21.08.2013, 02.09.2013 and 14.10.2013 Annexure R-3 from which it reveal that all problems occurred as mentioned above were rectified by the OPs. The grievance of the complainant is that the AC is defective one and prayed for replacement of the unit or refund the amount of Rs. 38000/-. To prove the manufacture defect in AC, he has to file the application under Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act to this Forum which is relevant to verify the manufacture defect. As per Section 13(1) (c) says  that “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which conanot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”

                  

                   In the present case, the complainant failed to file any application under the above provision nor he filed any report of private expert to prove the AC in question is having any manufacture defect or not. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :15.02.2017                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member