BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 241 of 2023.
Date of Institution : 05.06.2023
Date of Decision : 25.10.2024.
Ankit Gupta son of Sh. Satish Kumar, aged 36 years, resident of House No. 256, Gali Lachhman Dass MC, Ward No.3, Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana- 125104.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. Tower A, 12th Floor, Building No. 9, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 3, Gurugram, Haryana 122002.
2. Snow Breeze Products 2683-3, Guru Kanshi Marg, Near Yes Bank, Bathinda 151001.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Jagdish Kumar, authorized representative for complainant.
Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant purchased a Daikin air conditioner from op no.2 on 17.08.2020 vide invoice no. GST-378 dated 17.08.2020 for an amount of Rs.49,000/-. The complainant found default/ problem of Gas leakage in the said AC after two months from its purchase. It is further averred that complainant lodged a telephonic complaint with the Daikin Company on which employees of the company filled the Gas in the AC and gave assurance that now same is in OK condition and he will not face any such problem of gas leakage again. That in the year 2021 when he tried to operate the AC in the start of summer season, he found that Gas has leaked and he lodged a complaint again with the op no.1 and Gas was again filled by Daikin Authority and was given assurance that now he would not face the same problem again. It is further averred that he requested the Daikin Authority to change the air conditioner as it was under the guarantee period but they did not change the same and gave assurance that he will not face any problem. That in the end of month of August, 2021 the gas leaked again and the Daikin Authority changed the cooling coil due to manufacturing defect as gas had leaked for third time. It is further averred that now in the year 2023 when complainant tried to switch on the air conditioner, he found that gas has leaked again and the Daikin Authority charged one time amount of Rs.500/- from him for technician visit and Daikin Authority demanded amount of Rs.10,696/- for its repair. It is further averred that complainant is entitled to get the new air conditioner from the Daikin company as the same is defective from the date of purchase and company by making lame excuses has not changed the air conditioner and got lapsed the guarantee period and now Daikin company is refusing to admit the claim of complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation from Daikin company for harassment etc. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that company provided only a warranty on the products and replacement of the defective part of the product, if any subject to the terms and conditions of the product warranty card. The basic meaning of the word “warranty” means the repair or change of a damaged product if it is within warranty whereas the basic meaning of the word “guarantee” means replacement of the product that is in the guarantee period. The op no.1 provides only warranty on its product not a guarantee, hence there is no question of replacement of the entire air conditioning unit and complaint is not maintainable for replacement of the entire air conditioning unit. It is further submitted that clause 17 of warranty terms provides that 17 Courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute and as such this Commission has no jurisdiction and that alleged complaint relates to defect in goods which can only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods as per mandatory provision contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
4. On merits, it is submitted that complainant approached the op no.1 regarding malfunctioning of the AC after registering the complaint, the op no.1 sent its authorized engineers/ technicians to his residence to inspect the AC unit. Thereafter, upon inspection of the subject unit, it was observed that there is no performance deficiency or manufacturing defect. However, on insisting by the complainant about the gas issue and to fill new gas in the AC, the technicians filled the gas just for the satisfaction of the complainant. The service report was duly signed by complainant after his satisfaction about the proper functioning of the said unit. It is further submitted that in the year 2021, complainant again approached the op about the same issue. The technicians/ engineers visited the complainant’s residence for the inspection of the said product. It was found that the said unit was working properly but the complainant again insisted the technicians to fill the gas in the unit. On being insisted by the complainant, the technicians of op no.1 again filled up the gas for the satisfaction of the complainant and even replaced the Indoor Heat Exchange this time. Accordingly, a copy of the CSR had been produced to the complainant and same was signed by complainant on his satisfaction about the working of the said unit. It is further submitted that again after the service on 09.09.2021, the complainant again approached the op no.1 regarding the same issue. Accordingly op no.1 sent its technicians to inspect the said unit and upon inspection it was found that machine was working perfectly fine as per its specifications. But upon insisting by the complainant to fill up the gas in the said unit, the same was duly filled by the technicians on free of cost basis. That in 2023, the complainant once again approached the op no.1 regarding the same gas leaking issue in the said unit and accordingly once again op no.1 sent its technicians for the inspection. Upon inspecting the said unit, it was found that the machine was having the cooling leakage issue this time and the same was conveyed to the complainant and it was told that cost for the same will be intimated through email and the visiting charges were charged from the complainant as the warranty period for the said unit had expired. Accordingly, an email dated 02.05.2023 was sent to the complainant by op no.l quoting special discounted prices as one time customer support as total amount was Rs.11,884/- and after discount of Rs.1188/-, the discounted price was Rs.10,696/-. The estimate cost sheet was provided to the complainant after thorough inspection of the said unit by the technicians. It is further submitted that op no.1 put every effort to resolve the issue of the complainant every time on the satisfaction by the complainant. But now the estimate cost was provided for the replacement of the cooling coil and gas charges as the said unit is out of warranty period. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty of the said unit and as per invoice dated 17.08.2020 the warranty period had already expired on 17.08.2021 and now in 2023 the charges will be applicable as per terms and conditions of the warranty. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. OP no.2 did not appear despite delivery of notice and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, warranty card Ex.C1 and bill Ex.C2 and service completion certificate Ex.C3.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Anurag Misra, Company Secretary as Ex. RW1/A.
8. We have heard authorized representative on behalf of complainant, learned counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file.
9. From the invoice Ex.C2, it is evident that on 17.08.2020 the complainant had purchased air conditioner of Daikin company from op no.2 for the amount of Rs.49,000/-. From the warranty card placed on file by complainant as Ex.C1, it is evident that air conditioner was having 12 months warranty on all parts except front grill and plastic parts and thereafter 48 months additional warranty on the compressor. From the averments of both the parties as well as from service completion certificate Ex.C3, it is proved on record that gas of the air conditioner has been filled for three times and even indoor heat exchanger replaced. So, it is proved on record that compressor of the air conditioner which was having five years warranty is having certain defects as there is leakage problem of the gas despite the fact that same has been filled for three times. It cannot be said that gas in the air conditioner was filled at the insistence of complainant and for his satisfaction only and not due to any fault in the air conditioner. So the demand of op no.1 of the amount of Rs.10,696/- from complainant for resolving cooling leakage issue in the year 2023 is not justified because compressor of the air conditioner was having five years warranty. Rather it appears that air conditioner in question is having manufacturing defect from the date of its purchase as gas leaks even after refilling as same has been refilled for three times and even indoor heat exchange has also been replaced and as such in our opinion the complainant is entitled to replacement of the air conditioner in question with a new one.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 manufacturer of the air conditioner in question to either replace the air conditioner of the complainant with a new one of same make and price or to make refund of Rs.49,000/- i.e. price of the air conditioner in question to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the amount of Rs.49,000/- from op no.1 alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.6000/- (six thousands) as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 25.10.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
