Orissa

Cuttak

CC/157/2019

Udit Narayan Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Daikin Air Conditioing India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Kanungo & associates

17 Jun 2023

ORDER

                IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.157/2019

 

Udit Narayan Patra,

S/O:Pradeep Kumar Patra,

Proprietor of Hotel Lion,

At: Link Road,P.O:Arunodaya Market,

P.S: Badambadi, Dist: Cuttack.                                                         ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd.,N-4/249,1st Floor,IRC Village,Nayapalli,Bhubaneswar-751012

 

2. The Sale Executive,

Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.252,Chandrasekharpur,

            Bhubaneswar-751016

 

3. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd.,At:KhanNagar,P.O:Arunodaya Market,

          PS-Badambadi,Dist-Cuttack.

 

4. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd.,12th floor,Building No 9,Tower-A,

DLF Cyber City,DLF Phase-III,

Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.                                                                 ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     22.11.2019

               Date of Order:    17.06.2023

 

For the complainant:            Dr.S.K.Kanungo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

                    Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.                                               

             The case of the complainant in short is that he is the Proprietor of “Hotel Lion” situated at Link Road,Cuttack. It is stated by the complainant that he had purchased two nos. of Daikin Air Conditioners (in short A.C. machines) with Scroll Compressor with R-22 refrigeranton payment of a sum of Rs.1,91,284/- from the O.Ps on 15.11.2018 and installed the same in his hotel on payment of Rs.1,38,721/- towards the installation cost to the O.P.  As such, in total he had paid Rs.3,30,005/- to the O.Ps towards the cost of A.C. machines.  It is alleged by the complainant that from the day one of the installation of the A.C machines, due to some manufacturing defects in the machines it did not work properly.  So he had intimated such defect to the O.P no.2 and requested for repairing of the same.  The technician of the O.Ps repaired the A.C. machines but after 15 days again the same problem occurred in the A.C machines.  .  As the O.Ps did not rectify the defect of the A.C machines he sent the legal notice to the O.Ps for rectification of the defect of the A.C machines or in the alternatively had requested for replacement of the said A.C.machines.  After receiving the said legal notice, the O.Ps sent their technical person, who rectified the defect but the problem in the A.C machines persisted.  It is further stated by the complainant that the technical person insptie of rectifying the defects of the A.C machines had tried to establish fault at his end on the ground that he had not provided various conducive infrastructure and his non-cooperation, which is unwarranted.  The defect in his A.C machines is still persisting. The further case of the complainant is that he has established his hotel on rent basis and have engaged staffs and paying their wageson monthly basis besides electricity charges and etc.  It is alleged by the complainant that due to non-functioning of the A.C. machines, his business hampered and he has sustained great loss.  Hence, he has filed the present case with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps to pay him compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- in total towards his mental agony and loss in his hotel business alongwith a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

             The complainant has filed copies of several documents to prove his case.

2.         The O.Ps have  filed their application/petition for dismissal of the complaint case on the ground of maintainability of the complaint petition.  It is stated by them that the complainant had installed the A.C machines in his hotel and he has used the A.C machines for commercial purposes.  As such, the complaint case is not maintainable before this Commission and prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

             The O.Ps have also filed evidence affidavit wherein they have taken various pleas for dismissal of the complaint case.  It is alleged by the O.Ps that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as the Courts in Delhi has exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute between the parties.  It is alleged by them that the A.C machines are used in commercial purposes.  Hence, the present case is not maintainable.   On the merit of the case, it is alleged by the O.Ps that the A.C machines were working perfectly at the time of installation.  It is stated by them that they had rectified the defects as and when the complainant complained to that effect.  It is further stated by them that their technical person inspected the A.C machines of the complainant and found that due to electricity voltage fluctuation, the A.C machines were tripped automatically and for which the said technical person had advised the complainant to install a stabilizer to prevent the A.C machines from voltage fluctuations.  In another occasion, the technical person informed to the complainant for replacement of the H.P. switch but the complainant did not agree for replacement of that switch.  It is alleged by the O.Ps that the complainant insisted for replacement of the A.C. machines by a new one and did not sign on the verification report on the last occasion.  It is stated by the O.Ps that the complainant neither installed the stabilizer nor replaced the H.P switch for which the A.C. machines did not function properly.  It is stated by the O.Ps that the complainant has filed the case with malafide intention, which is liable to be dismissed with cost..

             The O.Ps have also filed some documents in order to prove their stand.

3.Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

          i.          Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act,1986 ?

          ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

          iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of                                               the O.Ps ?

          iv.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.i&ii.

                      The complainant had purchased the A.C. machines from the O.Ps for his hotel “Lion” for commercial purposes.  It reveals from the complaint petition that he has engaged staffs in his hotel and pays wages to them on monthly basis.   It is held that the hotel of the complainant is a commercial establishment. As the complainant had purchased the A.C. machines for commercial purposes for his hotel business, he is not coming under the definition of “consumer” under the C.P.Act,1986.  Hence, the complaint petition is not maintainable before this Commission.   As such, both the issues are answered against the complainant.

Issues no. iii& iv.

          From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                                          ORDER

          Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

             Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

 

                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                         Member

 

                                                                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President