BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.202 of 2016
Date of Instt. 05.05.2016
Date of Decision: 18.10.2017
Sukhwinder Singh Walia Son of Sh. Malkiat Singh Resident of 13 Vasant Avenue, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. 12th Floor, Building No.9, Tower A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana (India).
Through its General Manager/MD/Authorized Representative.
SECOND ADDRESS :-
Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. SCO-7, 2ND Floor,
Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Through its Branch Manager.
2. Techno World, 419-R Model Town, Jalandhar-144001, Through it Prop/Partner/Owner.
….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. RS Sarna, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sushil Mehta, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the OP No.1 is an electronic company dealing in manufacturing and selling of air conditioner under the brand name of Daikin, whereas OP No.2 is authorized dealer of OP No.1 and is in business of selling Air Conditioners of Daikin Brand. The OP No.2 sold a Daikin 1.5 ton, split AC FTC50PRV16, IND-0082054, out-0079158, vide bill bearing invoice No.R-198 dated 08.05.2015 to the complainant and received Rs.33,500/-. At the time of selling the said AC, the OP No.2, alleged to be an authorized dealer of Daikin AC of the OP No.1. The OP No.2 assured and promised the complainant that Daikin is the global No.1 air conditioner company from Japan i.e. the OP No.2 and also assured and promised that the air conditioner, manufactured by the OP No.1 is a world class product and proper and regular service for the same shall be provided by the OP No.1 and in case of any problem/break downs with the said air conditioner, an engineer from the service centre of the OP No.1 will come to the house of the complainant within 24 hours to resolve the problem. OP No.2 assured and promised the complainant that the said Air Conditioner has 12 months warranty and on all parts and thereafter, 48 months additional warranty on the compressor. Warranty Card of the said Air Conditioner was also issued by the OP. That initially the said air conditioner worked properly, but after few days, problems with the same started to arise as the indoor as well as outdoor unit of the said air conditioner started making loud noises. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs and brought into their notice the faults with the said air conditioner and also filed a complaint No.IXC150932085 dated 30.09.2015. But despite the said complaint and several reminders, the OPs failed to resolve the said problem and failed to get the said air conditioner repaired or replaced. Thereafter, on number of occasion the complainant approached the OP No.1 and also sent so many E-mails to the OP but of no use and despite that, till date, the OP have failed to get the said air conditioner repaired/replaced. The OPs have intentionally and malafidely have cheated and defrauded complainant and have supplied a faulty and substandard air conditioner, thereby the complainant has suffered mental tension, agony and harassment and financial loss due to the negligence and deficiency in services and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs and accordingly, the instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and also OPs be directed to replace the said faulty air conditioner of the complainant with a new good quality air conditioner or in the alternative to refund the price of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.33,500/- alongwith interest @ 24% from 08.05.2015, till realization and further OPs be directed to pay other expenses of Rs.3000/- and damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply and categorically admitted that the complainant had purchased a Daikin 1.5 ton Split AC on 08.05.2015 for Rs.33,500/- from OP No.2 and the said AC unit was duly installed at the premises of the complainant as per his specification and in compliance of the order, placed by the complainant with full satisfaction of the complainant, which is admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint that the AC was installed properly and was giving proper cooling for which demo was provided to the complainant in his full satisfaction and further alleged that the complainant made a complaint to OP No.2, who is the authorized dealer of the OP No.1 regarding noise in the indoor unit. The service team went to attend the service request of the complainant and after making necessary inspection, the technician could not found any reason for such noise and further as per the inspection, made by the service staff, the technicians approached the complainant to replace the indoor unit but he for extracting extra monies but complainant refused the said offer and even thereafter, the technician of the OP visited the premises of the complainant to resolve the concerned complaint but he was refused to give entry in the premises of the complainant. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and on merits, the factums/allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, the counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. From the very outset, it is established on the file that the complainant has purchased Daikin 1.5 ton Split Air Conditioner from OP No.2, who is the dealer of the manufacturing firm of OP No.1, after paying a price of the said AC of Rs.33,500/-, vide invoice Ex.C1 and one year warranty of all parts of the Air Conditioner was given by the OP and 48 months warranty was given for the compressor and warranty card placed on the file by the complainant is Ex.C-2 and in order to establish that there is an inherent mechanical defect in the Air Conditioner. The complainant tendered his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, whereby reiterated the entire facts as detailed in the complaint, apart from that the complainant sent so many complaints by way of email to the manufacturing company i.e. OP No.1 and these emails are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 and these emails complaints have been acknowledged by the OP No.1, vide email Ex.C-12. So, it means that there is some major defect in the Air Conditioner and due to that reason, the complainant sent email complaints to the manufacturing company, no doubt in response to that complaints, the technician of the OP visited the house of the complainant but he failed to remove the defect, admittedly there are some terms and conditions as produced on the file by the OP, which is Ex.OP/1 but these terms and conditions are very well mentioned in the Warranty Card Ex.C-2 and it is not disputed that a warranty of one year is given and product in question is well within warranty period and defect in the product is admitted by the OP No.1 in its reply in para No.5 under the heading 'Facts of the Case', wherein categorically admitted that the service team went to attend the service request of the complainant and after making necessary inspection, the technician could not found any reason for such noise. So, it means the technician of the OP himself could not able to find out the fault for which the said AC was giving a noise and accordingly, the said technician asked the complainant to replace the indoor unit but after making some extra money but this offer is refused by the complainant on the pretext that the product is well within warranty period and further on merits, in reply, in para No.4, the OP No.1 further narrated that “however, there were sudden instances were the machines makes some noise which is unidentifiable. The OP No.1 approached complainant for replacement but he failed to accept the said offer”. It is clearly established that the OP No.1/manufacturing firm itself accepted that there is a some inherent manufacturing defect in the air conditioner and due to that reason they give offer for replacement of the said product. So, under these circumstances, we reach to the conclusion that the allegations as made by the complainant in the complaint are directly and indirectly admitted by the OP No.1/manufacturing firm and as such, the
case of the complainant is proved and therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief.
7. In an upshoot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted and both the OPs are directed to replace the old air conditioner of the complainant with a new one of the same company of same price, after getting back the old air conditioner and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
18.10.2017 Member President
