Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/942/2019

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ranjinder Singh Sidhu

03 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/942/2019
Date of Institution	:	17/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	03/02/2021

 

 

Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh, R/o H.No.1278, 2^nd Floor, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Limited, 12^th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, through its General Manager.

 

2.      Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office Address: 210, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi, through its General Manager.

 

3.      Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Limited, City Center, 292, 1^st Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh-160035, through its Branch Manager.

 

4.      Utility Trading Engineers Pvt. Limited, Authorized Dealer, Office: SCO 309, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM	:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
		SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
		SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

For Complainant	:	None.
For OP Nos.1 to 3	:	Sh. Aseem Gupta, Advocate.
For OP No.4	:	None.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant purchased an Air Conditioner make Daikin 1.5 Ton 3 Star from Opposite Party No.4 (authorized dealer of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3) vide Bill dated 01.05.2019 for Rs.37,200/- (Annexure C-1). The Air Conditioner was installed on 04.05.2009 by the authorized person of Opposite Party No.4. After installing Air Conditioner in the house of Complainant, snag was developed in A.C and it stopped working on 14.06.2019. After registration of Complaint on 15.06.2019, representative of Opposite Party No.1 to 3 visited the Complainant house and after inspecting the A.C., recorded the remarks on Service Report/Commissioning Report that one split A.C. outdoor PCB is defective (Annexure C-2). When no action was taken by Opposite Party No.4, Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.4 on 29.06.2019 to lodge a written Complaint (Annexure C-3), but Opposite Party No.4 refused to accept the same. However, the Engineer of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 again visited the house of the Complainant on 29.06.2019 and gave the findings on Service Report/Commissioning Report fault details: Not Cooling, Action Taken: Outdoor PCB Change, A.C. not working (Annexure C-4). Eventually, when nothing positive could come out, the Complainant escalated his grievance through e-mail dated 09.07.2019 and 23.07.2019 (Annexure C-5 colly), but of no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed their joint written version and while admitting the basic facts of the case, pleaded that there was some problem in the PCB unit of machine which the answering Opposite Parties were ready to replace free of cost, but the Complainant insisted for replacement of entire machine which was also approved. However, the Complainant started demanding refund of cost of Air Conditioner along with compensation which was not warranted for as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Sh. Harjinder Singh, Sales Manager of Opposite Party No.4 has made a statement on 07.02.2020 that Opposite Party No.4 adopts the reply filed by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and the same be read as reply and evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 also.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and also gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
7.         Mostly, all the basic facts of the case i.e. purchase of the air conditioner, its installation, lodging of Complaints by the Complainant and defects found in the air conditioner by the Service Engineer, have not been disputed by the Opposite Parties.
8.         Opposite Parties defended the cause pleading that there was inherent problem in the PCB unit of machine which they (Opposite Parties) were ready to replace free of cost, but the Complainant insisted for replacement of entire machine which was also approved by them. However, the Complainant started demanding refund of cost of A.C. along with compensation. In this backdrop, Opposite Parties claim that there was no deficiency in service on their part as major delay in resolving the issue was due to non-cooperation of the Complainant.
9.         The Opposite Parties in their written version have categorically maintained that the Service Provider has accepted the Complainant’s request for replacement/ refund of the said Air Conditioner. Notwithstanding this, there is nothing on record which could substantiate that the Opposite Parties ever made the Complainant aware of such an offer. In the absence of any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, the stand taken by the Opposite Parties are hollow and deserve no merit. We feel making such a plea, by the Opposite Parties, is nothing but a clever ploy to save their skin and to frustrate the claim of the Complainant. Hence, the act of Opposite Parties for not processing the replacement/refund of the Air Conditioner of the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence of the Opposite Parties into unfair trade practice.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]      To refund Rs.37,500/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Air Conditioner along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of its purchase, till realization;

[b]      To pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and for causing mental and physical harassment to him; 

[c]      To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

11.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. instead of 7% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(a) from the date of purchase till realization and also to pay interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr. No.(b) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(c) above.
12.         The Complainant shall return the defective air conditioner in question, to the Opposite Parties, after the compliance of the order.
13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd Feb., 2021                          Sd/-    

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                   (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”