Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/625/2017

Sham lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.S. Jagdeva

01 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/625/2017
Date of Institution	:	07/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2018

 

[1]    Sham Lal, R/o Kumar Bag House Gandhi Bazaar Kharar, District Mohali.

[2]    Rakesh Kumar C/o Kumar Bag House Gandhi Bazaar Kharar, District Mohali.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

[1]    Daikin Air Conditioning Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, Regd. Office, F-25/2, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110020.

[2]    Saini Electronics, through its Proprietor, Main Bazaar Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.

[3]    Daikin Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager Customer Service, SCO No.14 & 15, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM        :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.N.S.Jagdeva, Counsel for Complainants.
	:	Sh.Ramik Gupta, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that on 31.03.2017 the Complainant had purchased one Daikin Split Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.2 for a consideration of Rs.44,600/- vide bill Annexure C-1. The said Air Conditioner was having warranty of five years; one year on complete Air Conditioner and four years on the Compressor of the Air Conditioner (Warranty Terms Annexure C-2). The said Air Conditioner was not giving adequate cooling since the very beginning. Accordingly, online Complaints were lodged on 24.04.2017 and 30.05.2017, upon which the Service Engineer visited the Complainant’s premises and checked the cooling of the Air Conditioner. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 took the Outdoor Unit, while the Indoor Unit was taken by Opposite Party No.2, to resolve the issue, but there was no positive headway. Eventually, the Complainant wrote e-mail dated 19.07.2017, 23.07.2017 & 29.07.2017 to the Opposite Parties narrating his torment, with a request to replace the Air Conditioner, but to no success.  Hence, alleging this as grave deficiency in service, this consumer complaint has been instituted before this Forum.   
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Service Engineer of the answering Opposite Parties duly attended the Complainant’s call and on each instance necessary service was provided to him.  It has been urged that on inspection, the Service Engineer found some issue in the working of Indoor Unit (IDU) and offered replacement of the same as there was leakage in it, but the Complainant had refused for the same and insisted on replacement of full unit without any justifiable reason. It has been asserted that the Complainant himself de-installed the outdoor unit from his premises and left the entire unit at dealer’s premises. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting Parties.
8.         On perusal of the documentary evidence available on record, we find that the installation of the A.C. has not been done by the Complainant from the authorized representative of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the warranty becomes void, as per the terms & conditions of warranty. Inspite of the void warranty, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 to resolve the problem amicably sent their Technical Engineer for inspection and found that the coil of the Indoor Unit (IDU) was damaged due to bad installation and offered to replace as a goodwill gesture the Indoor Unit (IDU) itself. The said offer was refused by the Complainant. Even during the course of arguments also, the Opposite Parties had offered to replace the same to resolve the matter, but the Complainant did not agree. Moreover, the Complainant has failed to produce on record any technical report to substantiate his case regarding manufacturing defect in the A.C. The in the entire Complaint has repeatedly alleged that the A.C. was not giving adequate cooling. However, the Complainant has not given any satisfactory explanation with regard to the fact as to what should be norms of adequate cooling. Also, the Complainant has not mentioned anywhere the size of his room in which the A.C. was installed. In the absence of this, the allegations of the Complainant is hollow and thus cannot be believed at their face value.  Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  
10.                 The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-		Sd/-
01/10/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member		President
“Dutt”