DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/99/2021

Date of Institution : 16.04.2021

Date of Decision : 23.02.2022

Puneet Jindal aged about 33 years son of Ramesh Kumar resident of Nanaksar Road Near Kapil Palace, Street No. 4, Barnala-148101 and Proprietor of M/s Puneet Telecom, KC Road, Near SD College, Street No. 4, Barnala-148101.  …Complainant

Versus

1. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office 12th Floor, Building No. 9, Tower A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana (India) through its Managing Director and CEO.

2. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., 210, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-3, Delhi-110020 through its Marketing Manager.

3. Vikas Electronics, Pharwahi Bazaar, Barnala-148101 through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory. 

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. MS Gill Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. SD Bansal Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

Opposite parties No. 3 exparte. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant Puneet Jindal filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased one air conditioner Daikin 1.5 Ton vide invoice dated 6.7.2019 manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and 2 from opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 39,000/- for his domestic use. At the time of purchase of the said AC opposite party No. 3 had given warranty of five years to the complainant against any defect and issued manual book to the complainant. It is further alleged that after about 4/5 months prior to 7.8.2020 the AC stopped to do cooling and AC door could not be properly closed which was a manufacturing defect. The complainant lodged complaints with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and an employee from the opposite party No. 1 came to the residence of the complainant and checked the said AC and told that the same will work like that as this is an inverter AC. The complainant again requested the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to send a trained mechanic and mechanic of opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and he requested him to increase the cooling. The said mechanic repaired the AC but not properly. On 1.7.2020 the complainant again lodged his complaint with the opposite party No. 1 but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant made many complaints and visited the showroom of opposite party No. 3 but of no use. He also served a legal notice dated 1.3.2021 but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to exchange and deliver a new AC having no manufacturing defect and to pay full price of the AC.  

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action as there is no territorial jurisdiction to file the present complaint. The AC unit was not installed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 or authorized dealer which is breach of terms and conditions of the warranty so complainant is not entitled to any benefit of contract of warranty. Further, the defect in goods only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods as per Consumer Protection Act 2019. Further, as expert opinion is must to check whether there is any manufacturing defect in the product. Further, the answering opposite parties provided only warranty of the products and replacement of defective part of the product if any subject to terms and conditions of the warranty card. The Daikin provides only warranty not guarantee and due  to unauthorized installation the complainant is not entitled for any warranty. 

4. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased 1.5 ton AC unit for Rs. 39,000/- from the opposite party No. 3 on 6.7.2019. Thereafter, the complainant got the installation done through an unauthorized person without registering any installation call. The unit had warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase which expired on 5.7.2020 and during warranty no complaints were raised by the complainant which means that the complainant satisfied with the AC unit. However, calls were registered after the expiry of warranty period and on scrutiny of the AC unit it was found that unit was working efficiently but complainant did not sign any job sheet. It is denied that the AC unit had a warranty of 5 years. The had failed to put any documentary proof on record that he made complaint during the warranty period i.e. prior to 7.8.2020. There is no manufacturing defect in the AC unit. The technician of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 visited the residence of the complainant and AC unit did not have any cooling issue and it was working efficiently. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Lastly, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with cost.  

5. The opposite party No. 3 did not appear before this Commission despite service, so the opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2021. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of user book Ex.C-3, copy of emails Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5, postal receipts Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anuraj Mishra Ex.OP-1.2/1 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 

9. On the perusal of the record of the present complaint, it is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that the mechanic from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 visited the premises of the complainant and repaired the AC. But this fact has been denied by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. 

10. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 specifically mentioned in their reply that neither the complainant lodged the complaint with the opposite parties for any defect in the air conditioner in question nor the mechanic of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant. The complainant failed to produce any copy of the complaint or complaint number vide which he had registered the complaint with the opposite parties. 

11. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 argued that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner. The learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 argued that the expert opinion is must to prove the  manufacturing defect.

12. To prove their stand the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 relied upon the citation of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 vide which the Hon'ble National Commission held that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

13. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 also relied upon the citation of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

14. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 also relied upon the citation of Hon'ble Orissal State Commission, Cuttack titled HCL Limited and others Versus Orissa State Commission for Women and Another bearing CD Appeal No. 307 of 1998 decided on 27.5.2009 vide which the Hon'ble State Commission held that “Petitioners neither have procured experts opinion nor examined any experts to establish that the defects pointed out and repaired as per the said report cum history cards are due to inherent manufacturing defect of the Xerox machine. Order allowing complaint set aside.”

15. The opposite parties also relied upon the citation of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited Versus Sunil Bhasin II (2008) CPJ-111 NC and STPL (Web) 2032 NC 2014 (3) CPR-670 (NC) titled Rakesh Kumar Versus Parkshit Tractors vide which the Hon'ble National Commission held that Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

16. On the other hand the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the alleged Air conditioner and failed to file any evidence or citation of higher court to rebut the stand taken by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. In this way, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        23rd Day of February 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member