Haryana

StateCommission

A/838/2016

B.S.BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAIKIN AIR CONDITIONING INDI APVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

03 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           838 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       12.09.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         03.05.2017

 

B.S. Bhatia son of Shri H.S. Bhatia, resident of House No.11, Champa Marg, DLF 1, Gurgaon.

                             Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Private Limited, Building #9, FL12, DLF, Phase III, Gurgaon through its Director/Authorized Representative.

 

2.      M/s Prima Technologies Private Limited, 847-848, 8^th Floor, Tower B-2, Spaze I, Tech Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon through its Director Shri Ravinder Wadhwa. 

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                         

Present:              Mr. B.S. Bhatia, appellant-complainant in person.

                             Respondents ex parte.

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed Prima Technologies Private Limited-opposite party No.2 (Dealer) to refund Rs.21,123/-, that is, the charges taken by it for installation of the four Air Conditioners in the house of complainant and Rs.5000/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      The complainant purchased four Air Conditioners of Daikin make from Prima Technologies Private Limited-opposite party No.2 (Dealer) for Rs.1,66,000/- on September 19^th, 2013.  The complainant also paid Rs.21,123/- on account of installation and fitting charges to the dealer.  The dealer did not install the air conditioners properly.  The complainant approached the dealer as well as manufacturer, that is, Daikin Air Conditioning India Private Limited-opposite party No.1.  On May 11^th, 2014 engineer of the manufacturer inspected the air conditioners and reported that there was defect in the installation of pipe and suggested to replace the pipes and re-filling of the gas but nothing was done by the dealer or the manufacturer despite the fact that there was guarantee of service and maintenance for 12 months.  The complainant got the air conditioners re-installed from one Mohammad Merghoob Kalim, for which he charged Rs.26,800/- from the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The manufacturer, in its, written version, pleaded that there was no report of engineer with regard to the defect in the air conditioners.  On May 11^th, 2014 engineer of the manufacturer reported that the air conditioners were not installed properly and advised for re-installation of the pipes but the complainant did not allow him to enter the premises.   It was found that the air conditioners were not installed by the manufacturer or its authorized dealer and as such, the terms and conditions of the warranty were not applicable.  Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.      The dealer, in its, written version, pleaded that the air conditioners were installed at the residence of the complainant and were working in perfect condition.  The leakage of the gas was due to some external factor.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of dealer.  Denying remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complaint was accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the dealer as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

7.      Notices were issued to the respondent No.1-dealer and respondent No.2-manufacturer.  On February 07^th, 2017 Sh. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the manufacturer but today nobody has appeared on behalf of the manufacturer.  So, the respondent No.1-manufacturer is proceeded ex parte. Notice issued to the respondent No.2-dealer received back duly served through Process Serving Agency of District Forum, Gurgaon but none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2-dealer. The respondent No.2-dealer is also proceeded ex parte.  

8.      It is not in dispute that the air conditioners were installed by the dealer and the dealer charged Rs.21,123/- from the complainant.     The air conditioners were installed by the complainant in his house to improve comfort level as well as leisure.  There was a report of engineer of the manufacturer that the air conditioners were not installed properly but inspite of that the defects were not removed.  The complainant got the new pipes installed from one Mohammad Merghoob Kalim, who charged Rs.26,800/- from the complainant.  Per record, it took about two months to get the pipes etc installed afresh by a private person than the dealer or the manufacturer.  Here is an ex army personnel now aged 85 years and he, from his resources of pension etc, purchased four air conditioners from the dealer in order that he and his old spouse, son, daughter-in-law and grand children could have the comfort of air conditioning in hot months.  He paid Rs.21,123/- for installation alone and to his dismay, the installation was defective resulting in non functioning of the cooling system.  He had not only to spend more for proper installation but had to also undergo the discomforts in the hot season alongwith his family members.  It goes without saying that he is eminently entitled to be compensated. The District Forum awarded Rs.5000/- which is highly inadequate. This Commission therefore, enhances the compensation to Rs.15000/- instead of Rs.5000/-. Except for the modification, the impugned order is upheld.  

9.      The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.    

 

 

Announced 03.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK