Vrs.
DAIKIN Air-conditioning India Pvt. Ltd.
12th Floor, Building No.9 Tower-A, DLF Cyber City,
DLF Phase 3, Gurgain-122002, Haryana. .....……….Opp. Party
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Self
- For the O.P. :- Sri. K.Panda & Associates
Date of Filing:20.01.2024, Date of Hearing :24.06.2024 Date of Judgement : 20.08.2024
Presented by Sri SadanandaTripathy, Member.
- The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased an DAIKIN ROOM SPLIT AIR CONDITIONER INVERTOR MODEL on 30.05.2022 for Rs. 38,000/-. The said AC developed cooling problem in mid of May, 2023 & online complaint was lodged in the OP’s website for the same. The complaint was attended by the Authorized sevice centre of the OP who failed to solve the problem. Despite multiple complaints raised (total 5 numbers ) relating to the same problem, the OP at many instances either cancelled the complaint or falsely stated that the work has been completed even though without repairing the defective AC for the said cooling issue problem, finding no other way the Complainant filing the case before this Commission for re-dressal.
- The version of the OP is that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the warranty card, Complainant himself has agreed to the jurisdiction at Delhi, hence filing of the consumer complaint at Sambalpur, Odisha is not permissible since the Complainant already agreed to jurisdiction at Delhi. The Complainant had raised a grievance in May, 2023 which was duly registered alleging that the said unit has “Cooling Problem”. The said grievance was duly tendered to by the service Engineer of OP and the technician of the OP had duly scrutinized the said unit and found fault in Display PCB. The Display PCB was duly replaced along with that wet service was also performed on a free of cost basis as the said unit was under warranty period in accordance with terms & conditions of the warranty card. After the replacement of the Display PCB & wet service, the unit was working perfectly. In view of the warranty terms the product sold by the manufacturer is not subject to refund of the price of the AC and the OP in compliance of the warranty period duly attended the complaints of the Complainant and repaired the AC unit without any a payment as an exceptional case on request of the dealer. Hence the demand for refund the cost of the said AC on the ground of alleged manufacturing defect after duly enjoying the product for a year without raising any complaint is rightfully and legally refused by the OP in present case. The subject AC unit was installed by unauthorized agent, therefore the OP No. 1 is not otherwise liable for the deficiency or act of the unauthorized installation which is in breach of the terms and conditions of the warranty as mentioned in the warranty card.
- From the above it is found that the AC purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant and the OP not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period.
Accordingly following issues are framed:
ISSUES
- Is the Complainant a Consumer of the O.P.?
- Is there any deficiency in service of the O.P. ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OP?
Issue No. 1:-Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.P.?
The Complainant had purchased an DAIKIN ROOM SPLIT AIR CONDITIONER INVERTOR MODEL on 30.05.2022 for Rs. 38,000/- . So the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P.
Issue No. 2:- Is there any deficiency in service of the O.P. ?
The AC purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant and the OP not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period. It is the duty of the OP to solve the problem. So the OP is responsible for deficiency in service.
Issue No. 2:-Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OP?
From all the facts of the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OP.
ORDER
The O.P is directed to pay Rs. 38,000/- toward cost of the AC to the Complainant, Rs. 20,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization.
Order pronounced in the open Court today on 20th day of Aug, 2024.
Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.
