Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/144/2017

Navin M.Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.Sathish Kumar,A.K.Rajaraman R.Gopika

26 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.09.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on:  26.02.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 26^th   DAY OF FEBRUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.144/2017

 

1.Navin M.Ram,

308 N Block, Ceebros Bay View Apartments,

4^th Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar,

Chennai – 600 041.

 

2.Khyati Shah,

W/o.Navin M.Ram,

308 N Block, Ceebros Bay View Apartments,

4^th Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar,

Chennai – 600 041.

                                                                                     …..Complainants

 ..Vs..

Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltrd.,

Represented by Regional Manager,

Door No. 497 & 498, 6^th Floor,

Isana kattima, Poonamalee High Road,

Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.

 

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainants                        : R.Sathish Kumar, A.K.Rajaraman,

                                                                      R.Gopika

 

Counsel for  opposite party                        : M/s.S.Rajeni Ramadass, C.P.Senthil

                                                                       Sujatha, R.Damodharan, M.R.Vinoth

                                                                       Prabhu

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainants purchased an air conditioner from the opposite party on 08^th May 2013 for a price of Rs.44,500/- along with a stabilizer from M/s.S.S.Annamalai Enterprise, No.123 A, Kalki Krishnamurthy Salai  (L.B.Road), Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. The said air conditioner was purchased in the name of M/s.Pipe Hangers & Supports Pvt Ltd., at Perungudi, Chennai. But the said air conditioner was bought for and used by the complainants at their residence. The warranty period for the said air-conditioner was for the period of 12 months which ended in May 2014.  Ever since the same, the air-conditioner has been constantly giving problem and none of the service engineers deputed by the opposite party were able to solve the problem and clear the same. In view of the manufacturing defect inherent in the air-conditioner and also the unprofessional services carried out by the  agency, the complainants were forced to change several parts in the air-conditioner namely, PCP board indoor, PCP board outdoor, outdoor DC fan mortar (twice), indoor FAIP and also the compressor. Though the compressor warranty had not expired, the same had to be changed as the product was inherently defective. The complainants  have so far spent about Rs.30,000/- in trying to make the air-conditioner work but the same has failed utterly and completely. The complainants had no other option but to purchase a new air-conditioner. The complainants were forced to make this expenditure only because of the defective product manufactured by the opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed for deficiency in service.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainants have purchased air-conditioner in the name of M/s Pipe Hangers P.Ltd., and 1^st complainant is director of the company. The said AC was used for commercial activity for making profit. Therefore in view of same the complainants herein are not  consumer as per the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After receiving the complaint from the complainants the opposite party herein sent its technicians who on investigation found that there was problem in “Printed Circuit Board” i.e PCB of said AC unit purchased by the complainants. Further it was revealed that the said AC was purchased on 8^th  May 2013  and complainants were facing problem during 2016.   The said AC was out of warranty period. The opposite party provided only warranty of the product subject  to warranty card of the product. Therefore the present complaint is not maintainable. The  basic meaning of the word warranty means the repair or the change of damaged product if within warranty. It is denied that said AC has manufacturing defect. The said AC was working properly during the warranty period and issue arose in the year of 2016. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. whether the complaint is filed within the jurisdiction limit?

3 whether the complaint is time-barred?

          4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

4. POINT NO :1, 2 & 3         

          The complainants purchased an air-conditioner of a brand “Daikin” from the opposite party on 08.05.2013 for a price of Rs.44,500/- along with a stabilizer  from M/S Annamalai Enterprise in the name of M/S Pipe Hangers and supports Pvt.Ltd., The 1^st complainant  is the director of the said company. The  Air-conditioner was purchased for the personal use  and utilized by the complainants at their residence. Warranty period for the said air-conditioner ended in May 2014. Now the case of the complainants is that the purchased air-conditioner has been constantly giving problem and authorized service centers were unable to rectify the defects and the complainants were forced to change several parts of the air-conditioner  with heavy costs, even then air-conditioner was not functioning. Hence the  defective air-conditioner is inherent and it is a manufacturing defect. Therefore the complaint is filed for the replacement of the said air-conditioner or to compensate the price for the air-conditioner.

05. Invoice is Ex.A1 dated  08.05.2013. Admittedly warranty period is over. Ex.A2 is the receipt for job work done for outdoor DC, Fan motor dated 17.07.2014. Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 are service completion certificate  for the year 2014 to 2016. E-mail correspondence between the complainants and opposite party is Ex.A8. Warranty card is Ex.B1. Copy of the customer service report and satisfaction report are Ex.B2 and Ex.B3.

  06. The opposite party had raised the “ouster clause” i.e as per clause 17 of the agreement between the parties. So far as the jurisdiction matter is concerned the consumer complaint could be filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum within the territorial jurisdiction where a part of cause of action arises. Therefore the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum.  Hence contention raised by the opposite party is rejected.

 07. The opposite party has resisted the complaint by pointing out that the purchased product by the complainant is for commercial purpose and  the complainants  are not considered as a consumer. Complainants have stated in the complaint that the air-conditioner is purchased for their residential use only. There is only one air-conditioner Purchased vide Ex.A1 invoice. There is no proof filed by the opposite party for their conclusion. Consideration paid by the company does not mean that the purchased air-conditioner was utilized for commercial purpose. Hence complaint falls within the definition of Consumer.

 08. Limitation point was also raised by the opposite party and the services done for the defects till 2016 admittedly, extends the limitation from the date of purchase. Hence it is concluded that the complaint is filed in time.   Therefore point no.1 to3 are answered in favour of the complainant.

09. POINT NO.4:

               Admittedly the warranty period for the said air conditioner ended in May 2014, but the compressor warranty has not expired. Problem in the product started soon  after the period of warranty. It is evident from the documents exhibited in Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 by the complainants. From the records, it is also evident that  M/s. Snow City Enterprises, an Authorized Service Centre of the opposite party deputed for service by the opposite party and one Jai Air Systems, another service  agency Authorized by the opposite party were unable to solve the problem till 2016. Complainants were forced to change several parts in the air-conditioner such as PCP board indoor, outdoor, Outdoor DC fan motor, indoor items and the compressor. In view of the same the complainants were forced to spend more money in buying spare parts and also to invest in another brand of air-conditioner for their urgent usage.  Inspite of the efforts of the paid services done by the authorized agencies, the Air conditioner failed to work and resulted in endless problem.

           10. Ex.B1 is the warranty card for a year from the date of purchase. Ex.B2 is the customer service report dated 02.10.2015 for which the complainants paid Rs.10,000/- for  service and also Rs.5,850/- on 17.07.2014.  Ex.B3 is also a service completion certificate from which it is noticed that there was a complaint on 02.11.2015 and Rs.14,395/- was paid by the complainants. Again there was a service completion certificate for the services  done on 18.02.2016 for which Rs.7,652/- was paid by the complainants. On 18.03.2016 service was done on payment of  Rs.10,652/- These have been filed by the opposite party to prove that they have attended the service on all the calls of the complainants. But per contra it also indicates that the product got repaired every now and then.

11.E-mail correspondences in Ex.A8 series clearly proves that the discrepancies are brought to the notice of the opposite party but opposite party had sent the authorized agency for service. Even then the problem persisted and could not be rectified. It is also stated in the written version of the opposite party that as a goodwill gesture, they offered to replace the defective parts free of cost but the complainants did not allow instead asked for a new unit or refund of the product price.      

12. The opposite party would also contend that the complainants had not chosen to file any expert opinion to prove the alleged manufacturing defect, but the aforesaid defects started soon after a year of purchase and also not ended in fruitful result  even after the paid services done proves itself there are inherent manufacturing defects in the air-conditioner.  Hence it does not require any expert opinion and  it is concluded that there is deficiency in service and the complainants need  to be compensated.

13. POINT NO.5:

The  complaint regarding lack of sleep by the complainants due to the problem in air-conditioner is accepted since it is attributable due to defective air-conditioner which has the inherent manufacturing defect as discussed in earlier point. Therefore opposite party is directed to replace the air-conditioner with split No.1 Brand Daikin air-conditioner 1.5 Ton Invertor LR-32 or pay a sum of Rs.44,500/- towards the cost of the Air conditioner and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service  besides the  cost of Rs.5,000/- for costs.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace the  Air Conditioner with split No.1 Brand Daikin air-conditioner 1.5 Ton Invertor LR-32 or pay a sum of Rs.44,500/-  (Rupees forty four thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of the Air Conditioner to the complainants  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 /-(Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service  besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for costs.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainants within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th day of February 2020.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANTS:

Ex.A1 dated 08.05.2013          Invoice for the purchase of the Air conditioner from the opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A2 dated 17.07.2014          Cash re receipt for the cash received from the complainant

Ex.A3 dated 10.07.2014          Service completion certificate

Ex.A4 dated 02.10.2015          Service completion certificate

Ex.A5 dated 02.11.2015          Service completion certificate

Ex.A6 dated 18.02.2016          Service completion certificate

Ex.A7 dated 24.03.2016          Service completion certificate

Ex.A8 dated 21.03.2016          Emails between the complainant and the opposite

05.12.2016                              party

                                               

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Copy of warranty card

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Copy of Customer Service Report

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                      Copy of satisfaction report (CSR)

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT