Order No. 13  dt.  30/12/2019

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one A.C. machine on 5.1.16 under the brand name ‘DAIKIN’ at a price of Rs.43,550/-. The machine, purchased was a 1.5 split inverter A.C. machine. The o.ps. were responsible for free services after sale within a year from the date of sale. Th said machine was installed on 7.1.16. The o.ps. provided 1^st free service in the month of May, 2016, but failed to two other free services. The complainant started to run the machine in the month of April, 2016 and in the month of June, 2016 it was detected that no cooling air was being produced or flowing from the said unit. The complainant informed the service centre and a service engineer attended the fault and tried to rectify the fault by filling up cooling gas, but it was immediately discovered that gas leakage problem as well as chocking of the duct were responsible for free flow of cool air. The complainant has stated that it was manufacturing defect. Subsequently the complainant also noticed further trouble in the month of April, 2017 and the service centre was informed and normal service was provided by checking the machine with nitrogen gas. The complainant requested the service engineer to arrange for replacement of the machine, which was sold to the complainant with manufacturing defect. Thereafter the complainant made several e-mails, but no reply was provided. Subsequently on repeated requests o.p. no.7 replied and o.p. no.4 agreed to resolve the problem of the complainant with the A.C. machine by 10.5.17 and on 17.5.17 o.p. no.4 informed the complainant that since the warranty period has expired, therefore further service can be provided by paying the minimum cost by the complainant. The o.p. no.4 further informed the complainant that they will provide one year warranty for repairing. The complainant accepted the said proposal and the service personnel visited the place of the complainant and repairing work was done, but the problem in the said machine remained same as it were. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to replace the A.C. machine in question or pay the sum of Rs.70,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

                The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that as per the terms of the warranty clause the office of the manufacturing company situated in Delhi and as per the clause 17 of the warranty the courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute, on that score o.ps. alleged that the case is not maintainable before this Forum. In support of the said contention in the w/v o.ps. cited several judgments. It was further stated that as per Sec. 13(1)(B) of the C.P. Act whereby it has been stated that Ld. District Forum to proceed with the settlement of consumer dispute in the manner specified in Sec. 13(C) to (G) as provided under the C.P. Act. It was also alleged that the present case relating to the defect of goods, which can only determined with the proper analysis or test of the goods as per the mandatory provision contained under the C.P. Act. The complainant has not filed any petition for expert’s opinion and thereby without having any report from any expert it cannot be said that there is any manufacturing defect. It has further been stated that o.ps. on getting the complaints from the complainant removed the defects and after lapse of the warranty period o.ps. charged the services, if the complainant availed such service and the complainant agreed to avail such service and accordingly the service was provided. The o.ps. also stated that in the month of June,2016 the complainant registered a service call of request with o.ps. after which technician of service centre was appointed who visited the premises of the complainant to check the A.C. unit during which issue of gas shortage was detected and accordingly, top up the cooling gas after which the A.C. machine was running perfectly. Thereafter no service call / complaint was registered by the complainant for almost one year. That no such registration of service call clearly depicts that the A.C. unit was working properly within the standard parameters. The complainant, thereafter, in the month of April, 2017 lodged a complaint that A.C. unit was not giving proper cooling. The technician of o.ps. again visited the premises of the complainant to inspect the said A.C. unit, but the complainant refused to give access to the technician which compelled the technician to return without even checking the A.C. unit. The complainant, thereafter, by an e-mail requested for service check up on 2.4.17 and the technician visited for checking the said unit and found minor leakage in the condenser coil. The technician duly informed the reason of leakage in condenser coil which was solely because of various environmental conditions prevailing in the vicinity and on scrutinizing the warranty card it was found that the A.C. unit was out of the warranty period. Thus, the repairing of condenser coil will be subject to charges. On hearing such claim of the technician the complainant refused to pay any amount and subsequently filed the case by making false allegation against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant purchased the A.C. machine from o.ps.?
2. Whether during the warranty period there was any defect in the said machine?
3. Whether the complainant was provided with the service by o.ps.?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one A.C. machine on 5.1.16 under the brand name ‘DAIKIN’ at a price of Rs.43,550/-. The machine, purchased was a 1.5 split inverter A.C. machine. The o.ps. were responsible for free services after sale within a year from the date of sale. Th said machine was installed on 7.1.16. The o.ps. provided 1^st free service in the month of May, 2016, but failed to two other free services. The complainant started to run the machine in the month of April, 2016 and in the month of June, 2016 it was detected that no cooling air was being produced or flowing from the said unit. The complainant informed the service centre and a service engineer attended the fault and tried to rectify the fault by filling up cooling gas, but it was immediately discovered that gas leakage problem as well as chocking of the duct were responsible for free flow of cool air. The complainant has stated that iot was manufacturing defect. Subsequently the complainant also noticed further trouble in the month of April, 2017 and the service centre was informed and normal service was provided by checking the machine with nitrogen gas. The complainant requested the service engineer to arrange for replacement of the machine, which was sold to the complainant with manufacturing defect. Thereafter the complainant made several e-mails, but no reply was provided. Subsequently on repeated requests o.p. no.7 replied and o.p. no.4 agreed to resolve the problem of the complainant with the A.C. machine by 10.5.17 and on 17.5.17 o.p. no.4 informed the complainant that since the warranty period has expired, therefore further service can be provided by paying the minimum cost by the complainant. The o.p. no.4 further informed the complainant that they will provide one year warranty for repairing. The complainant accepted the said proposal and the service personnel visited the place of the complainant and repairing work was done, but the problem in the said machine remained same as it were. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to replace the A.C. machine in question or pay the sum of Rs.70,000/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that as per the terms of the warranty clause the office of the manufacturing company situated in Delhi and as per the clause 17 of the warranty the courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute, on that score o.ps. alleged that the case is not maintainable before this Forum. In support of the said contention in the w/v o.ps. cited several judgments. It was further stated that as per Sec. 13(1)(B) of the C.P. Act whereby it has been stated that Ld. District Forum to proceed with the settlement of consumer dispute in the manner specified in Sec. 13(C) to (G) as provided under the C.P. Act. It was also alleged that the present case relating to the defect of goods, which can only determined with the proper analysis or test of the goods as per the mandatory provision contained under the C.P. Act. The complainant has not filed any petition for expert’s opinion and thereby without having any report from any expert it cannot be said that there any manufacturing defect. It has further been stated that o.ps. on getting the complaints from the complainant removed the defects and after lapse of the warranty period o.ps. charged the services, if the complainant availed such service and the complainant agreed to availed such service and accordingly the service was provided. The o.ps. also stated that in the month of June,2016 the complainant registered a service call of service request with o.ps. after which technician of service centre was appointed who visited the premises of the complainant to check the A.C. unit during which issue of gas shortage was detected and accordingly, top up the cooling gas after which the A.C. machine was running perfectly. Thereafter no service call / complaint was registered by the complainant for almost one year. That no such registration of service call clearly depicts that the A.C. unit was working properly within the standard parameters. The complainant, thereafter, in the month of April, 2017 lodged a complaint that A.C. unit was not giving proper cooling. The technician of o.ps. again visited the premises of the complainant to inspect the said A.C. unit, but the complainant refused to give access to the technician which compelled the technician to return without even checking the A.C. unit. The complainant, thereafter, by an e-mail requested for service check up on 2.4.17 and the technician visited for checking the said unit and found minor leakage in the condenser coil. The technician duly informed the reason of leakage in condenser coil which was solely because of various environmental conditions prevailing in the vicinity and on scrutinizing the warranty card it was found that the A.C. unit was out of the warranty period. Thus, the repairing of condenser coil will be subject to charges. On hearing such claim of the technician the complainant refused to pay any amount and subsequently filed the case by making false allegation against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the A.C. machine manufactured by ‘DAIKIN’. After the lapse of several months, there was trouble in the said machine and the service centre provided the service free of cost to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant ran the said machine without any complaint within the warranty period. Subsequently after the expiry of the warranty period some defects arose in the said machine and the service centre was informed and the technician on reaching the premises of the complainant and going through the warranty card opined that there was problem in the cooling system for which some repairing is to be required and for changing some parts the complainant will have to pay repairing charges. The complainant refused to pay any charge for getting such service for which no service was provided to the complainant. The o.ps. have categorically stated that during the warranty period the technician visited the place of the complainant, but the complainant refused to allow the said technician to check the A.C. machine. Ultimately o.ps. informed the complainant that if the repairing charges are paid the service centre would provide further warranty for another year, but the complainant did not accept such proposal made by the technician of the service centre. The complainant has stated that there is manufacturing defect in the said machine, but if there would have been any manufacturing defect then the A.C. machine would not have functioned continuously for more than one year. The complainant has not filed any petition for appointment of any expert to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the said machine. It appears from the materials on record that the defect arose in the said machine after some teething trouble arose during the initial stage and subsequently with the rectification of such defect the machine functioned properly and after expiry of the warranty period some minor defects were found for which the technician of the service centre asked the complainant to pay the charges for removing of such minor defects. But the complainant refused to pay and filed this case claiming the replacement of the said machine as well as other reliefs. On perusal of the record we find that since there was some misunderstanding between the parties, thereby o.ps. should be asked to provide free service of repairing to the complainant within one month. As such, we hold that since the complainant has suffered, therefore the complainant must have provided with some compensation and litigation cost. Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.20/2019 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to provide the free service of repairing of the said A.C. machine and to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.