Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/200/2021

Ajit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Daikin air - Opp.Party(s)

Anirudh

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 200 of 2021

                  Date of Institution             : 01.10.2021

                                                           Date of Decision               : 09.11.2023

 

 

Ajit Kumar son of Sh. Gorakh Ram R/o New Bazar, Neem Chowk near Annakshetra, Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Manager, Daikin air-conditioning India Private Limited, 12^th floor, Building No.9, Tower A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 3, Gurgaon-122002.

 

2. Manager, Daikin air-conditioning India Private Limited, Unit No.210, First Floor, Industrial Estate, Okhla Phase , New Delhi-110020.

 

3. Electronic Point, Near Chaudhary Bansi Lal ki Kothi, Hansi road, Bhiwani-127021.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:    Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Anirudh, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Ajay Verma, Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.

OP No.3 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased 3 air conditioners of Daikin Company vide invoice No.EP/1232/2021-22 dated 19.06.2021; 1.8 Ton in Rs.52,500/-, vide invoice No.EP/1313/2021-22 dated 25.06.2021; 1.5 Ton in Rs.37,500/- and  vide invoice No.EP/1319/2021-22 dated 26.06.2021; 1.5 Ton; in Rs.47,500/- from OP No.3. The ACs were installed by the engineers of OP and was asked to start the same on coming of the electricity but to surprise, the ACs were not worked. OP NO.3 was informed who suggested to contacted to OP company. As per complainant, OP company assured that as and when the stock will be available, the ACs will be replaced with new.  Complainant has submitted that the ACs were not used till 01.10.2021 since its purchase thus complainant has alleged that the OPs have sold him already used ACs. Complainant has alleged that the act & conduct of Ops amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which caused him monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking direction against the OPs to pay Rs.2.00 lac as compensation, to refund the costs of the ACs alongwith interest and Rs.850/- towards drafting expenses of the case.  Any other relief, to which this Commission deem fit may also be awarded in favour of complainant.

2.                 OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed reply, admitting purchase of the ACs by the complainant but it has submitted that complainant has not installed the ACs from the authorized distributorship network. Hence, replacement is not entitled to the complainant.  Answering OPs further submitted that it received complaint dated 20.09.2021 from OP No.3 who was informed by the complainant. The technicians of Ops No.1 & 2 duly attended the complaint and found that ODU thermistor was broken and PCB was defective, complainant was asked to replace the defective parts but he refused and demanded for refund. Another complaint dated 25.09.2021 was also received, ASP called complainant for appointment but he refused rather remained adamant for refund. It is submitted that ASP of the OPs No.1 & 2, on telephonic conversation offered replacement of the defective parts and replacement of the AC units to the complainant but he refused for replacement and demanded refund for the units. The answering OPs have submitted in reply to para no.7 of the complaint that initial complaint was received from the complaint on 11.08.2021 for Regular Maintenance Service (RMS) and Technicians of OPs duly visited the premises of complainant and necessary service was done. Hence, the said complaint was resolved. Thus the Ops No.1 & 2 have submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint  with costs.

3.                 OP No.3 did not appear despite issuance of registered notice, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.12.2021.

4.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on 13.01.2023.

5.                 On the other side, affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. D1 to Ex. D3 were tendered and closed the evidence on 03.03.2023.

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.

7.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the Air conditioners so purchased him from OP No.3 did not work since its purchase and installation. But despite approaching the OPs many times, defects could not be rectified. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the ACs  were having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the engineers of OPs, as such, the Ops are liable to refund the cost of the ACs alongwith compensation for harassment and other expenses.

8.                 On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 argued that on receiving complaint with regard to defects in the Air conditioner(s), needful was done and working of ACs were set right but the complainant remained on adamant that the product is having some more defects but in fact the same were not there. Thus learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the products were having no defects rather it were installed by complainant from any unauthorized/unskilled person which may have caused affect to the working of the ACs.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

9.                 Learned counsel for complainant to prove the case has placed on record copy of purchase bill(s) of the Air conditioners in question (Annexure C-1 having 3 pages) and the ACs did not work, has placed on record, complaints made by it to the OP company as Annexures C-2 to Annexure C-5.  From perusal of these complaints/e-mails, it seems that the ACs were having some defects which could not be rectified by the OPs despite making complaints upto 30.09.2021. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and assessing the evidence so adduced by both the sides, we are of the view that the Air conditioners became defective since its installation but defects could not be rectified by the Ops, meaning thereby that Air conditioners were having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the Ops. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs No.1 & 2 being manufacturer and OPs No.3 being seller of the products in question are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as have sold the defective product to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To refund the purchase amounts of the Air conditioners in question to the tune of Rs.1,37,500/- (Rs. One lac thirty seven thousand five hundred) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual realization, subject to deposition of the old/defective three Air conditioners by the complainant with OP No.3.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant(s) at the hands of OPs.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

 

Announced.           

Dated: 09.11.2023