Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/518

Jatinder Kumar Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

compl.in person

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No : 518 of 19.07.2016

   Date of Decision       :   15.02.2017 

 

Jatinder Kumar Malik s/o Sh.Baldev Raj aged 34 years r/o H.No.8, Onkar Vihar, Opp. Sector 33, Chandigarh road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.Daikin Air-conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at F-25/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.

2.Deekay Electronics, 4167, Street No.5, Beantpura, Samrala Chowk, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         In person

For OP1                         :         Sh.Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant, a businessman dealing in bicycle parts at Ludhiana, purchased air conditioner Daikin Split 1.5T DTKP50R-C1(Inverter) for an amount of Rs.45,000/- +Installation charges of amount of Rs.1500/- + stand angle iron frame wall of amount of Rs.600/- from OP2 on 24.5.2016 by paying Rs.47,100/-in all through bill. After one month of purchase, PCP of the above said AC became defective because it was not giving cooling. On lodging of complaint to OP company on 5.7.2016, one mechanic Gurpal Arora visited the house of complainant and checked AC for finding PCP as defective. Said mechanic assured the complainant that PCP will be delivered by OP company and the defective will be removed within 2-3 days thereafter. Then complainant again contacted the said Gurpal Arora, who again called upon the complainant, but he did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. It is claimed that OP company dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant sent emails on 14.7.2016, but no satisfactory reply was received and nor the problem was resolved, despite the fact that AC was found within warranty period, due to which, OP company liable to remove the defects. Complainant requested Ops to replace the above said AC or to return the amount, but they refused. Complainant lodged many complaints through emails or customer care number, but to no effect. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to refund the amount of Rs.47,100/- along with interest @18% per month from the date of purchase or in the alterative directions sought to Ops to replace or repair the defective air conditioner. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2 lac even claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is claimed that allegations contained in the complaint are contradictory and inconsistent with each other; the Courts at Delhi alone have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any dispute as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Alleged defect in the product can be determined on proper analysis or test of the goods as per the mandatory provision contained in Sections 13(1)(c) to (g) and 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.  In view of this, prayer made for sending the AC to appropriate laboratory. Complainant failed to establish nexus between the damages claimed in the present complaint and damages suffered by him. Amount of damages claimed is arbitrary and the same claimed for abusing the process of law. Complaint alleged to be filed with ulterior and malafide motive, despite the fact that there is no manufacturing defect or shortcoming in the goods supplied by OP1. OP1 is a company of repute. After receipt of the complaint from the complainant, service engineer of OP1 visited the location and on conduct of due investigation, found the PCB was defective. So, service technician of OP1 took measures to change the same within few days and said PCB was replaced free of costs. After replacement of the PCB unit, the AC is working without problem. Complementary services were also provided  to the complainant, despite the fact that technical fault was not found in the AC unit. However, the complainant refused to co-operate. It is claimed that the complaint is entirely baseless and the versions contained in the complaint are false. Proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature, but controversial points raised cannot be decided without adduction of evidence, examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops in the legal sense. It is claimed that the complainant got the call registered with the service centre few days after installation. Rather, due services were provided to the complainant after receipt of the complaint by deputing service technician and changing PCB. Basic reason of improper functioning of PCB was because of improper voltage supply and improper electricity connection. As per condition no.8 of terms and conditions of the warranty, the company is not liable, if defect caused due to abnormal voltage or due to connection of the product to improper power supply. After arranging for PCB part, the technician called upon the complainant for seeking appropriate time for installation, but the complainant refused by disclosing the technician as if he is not at his residence and will contact himself after reaching home. Complainant after 2-3 days contacted the technician and asked him to come immediately, on which, the technician refused because of prior engagement with other customer. The said technician disclosed the complainant that he will attend the call by next day. On this complainant refused and insisted upon attending the same day and finally, the technician installed the new PCB on 19.7.2016. Complainant by doing such acts, tried to create an illusionary and mawkish story. Delay in installation of the new part as such alleged to be because of the complainant’s unavailability. Complaint alleged to be filed just for harassing Op, despite the fact that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is claimed that the complainant has no cause of action. Rather, the complaint filed on account of greed of compensation amount. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                OP2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents EX.C1 to Ex.C7 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Mr.Roopesh Jain working as Company Secretary with OP1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

7.                It is vehemently contended by Sh.Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate representing OP1 that this Forum has no jurisdiction because as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, Courts at Delhi alone has jurisdiction. That submission of counsel for OP1 has no force, because purchase of the A.C in question took place at Ludhiana and installation of the same took place at Ludhiana at the house of complainant and as such, cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant vehemently contends that despite repeated calls, the services of technician were not provided for redressal of grievance of stoppage of cooling of purchased A.C and as such, he along with his children suffered lot in terrible hot days.

8.                After going through Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, it is made out that the complainant kept on sending SMS from 7.5.2016 to 11.5.2016 for claiming that his grievance of repair of AC should be redressed at earliest because there is terrible hot. However, letter Ex.C6 produced by the complainant shows that if response of the complaint not received within 30 days of posting of the complaint, then complainant should ensure that he has posted the complaint with the correct company. So, in view of this correspondence available on record, it is made out that though complainant kept on posting the complaints through SMS, but some time was taken by the Ops for analyzing the defect after getting the AC inspected from the mechanic. It is not a case of manufacturing defect at all because the same is not pleaded. Rather, as per affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Mr.Roopesh Jain, the service engineer of OP1 after visit of location and conduct of investigation found that PCB was damaged and that is why the same was replaced free of costs within few days. Further, as per para no.12 of affidavit Ex.RW1/A, AC was working absolutely fine without any problem after replacement of the PCB unit. When confronted with this position, then complainant admitted during the course of arguments that now AC is working properly after replacement of PCB unit.

9.                Now, the grievance of the complainant remains that though complaint was lodged on 5.7.2016, but the defects were not removed for long and that is why, he was forced to file this complaint on 19.7.2016. If those submissions taken            into consideration, then they show as if the grievance of the complainant was not redressed for at the 14 days at the most. But some time bound to be consumed in conduct of investigation, deputing service engineer and then fetching the defective part and replacing the same and as such, if defects free of costs removed before 19.7.2016, then   it cannot be held to be a case of much delay in providing services. At least one    day required for deputing the mechanic and thereafter, one day required for investigation and then few days required for fetching the defective parts and then one day at least required for repair and as such, in view of procedural wrangle, the delay in removing the defect cannot be said to be intentional or malafide. Rather, through para no.13 of affidavit Ex.RW1/A, it is claimed that complementary services even offered, but the complainant with malafide intention refused to cooperate by claiming as if he was not at house on the day when contacted. As per affidavit Ex.RW1/A, finally technician installed PCB on 19.7.2016 and if that be the position, then virtually defect cured within 14 days, despite the fact that the complainant malafide refused to cooperate by claiming that he is not at his house for 2-3 days. This is borne from the contents of para no.17 of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. So, it is not a case, in which, deficient services were provided. Rather, it is a case, in which, complainant himself was not available for 2-3 days, due to which, the technician could not visit the site. For those delay of 2-3 days, Ops cannot be held liable and as such, in view of repair of AC being done free of costs at earliest, present cannot be termed as a case of deficiency in service at all, even though complainant and his family has to remain for sometime without AC.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli         )                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:15.02.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.