Order-14.
Date-10/07/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short, is that OP1 is the manufacturer of air conditioning machines and oP2 is the selling agent of OP1. Complainant purchased 1.5 ton air conditioner from OP2 under cash invoice no.BB/SA/1516/01909 dated 14-05-2015. The air-conditioner machine was covered under warranty for one year. The subject machine developed defects sometime in the 3rd week of September, 2015 and the complainant reported the matter over phone to OP1 and OP1 sent two service men who inspected the machine and informed the complainant the compressor of the machine was required to be charged by gas for the smooth running of the said air-conditioner. The machine accordingly was refilled by gas and the machine began to run smoothly. Due to the seasonal change of weather in Kolkata in the middle of October, 2015 the complainant did not use the machine till middle of March, 2016. The complainant, thereafter, faced similar problem like no cooling as before when the complainant tried to operate in the middle of March. The complainant lodged complaint on 16-03-2016 to the OP. The technical men of the service centre came and inspected the machine and said that gas need to be refilled again. They also opined that there was some leakage but in spite of inspection of the said machine they could not find any leak in the machine. It is alleged that OP1 could not rectify the machine as they failed to identify the leakage. It is alleged that the machine suffers from manufacturing defect. The machine is at present lying with OP1 for repair. On several occasions complainant tried to contact with the OPs to know the progress of work but in vain. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice against the OPs and has prayed for replacement of the air-conditioner machine along with other reliefs in terms of the prayer of the petition of complaint.
OP1 has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. It is stated that the alleged defect in the AC unit mentioned by the complainant is based on conjecture and surmise. It is stated that the product was bought by the complainant on 14-05-2015 and hence, it is out of warranty and even, otherwise, as per warranty terms the product sold by the manufacturer is not subjected to replacement. It is also stated that this OP in compliance of the contract of warranty duly attended the complaint of the complainant and duly serviced the said AC. It is denied that the machine suffered from manufacturing defect without any expert evidence. It cannot be determined without any expert opinion that there is any manufacturing defect in the product. It is stated that there was only minor problem of gas leakage and which was also resolved free of cost by the OP and the AC is working absolutely fine. It is stated that the complainant has filed the instant case by concealing material fact and is trying to get replacement of the product with new AC unit. It is denied that there is deficiency in service of the OP or OP has indulged in unfair trade practice. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP2 has not contested the case and the case has processed ex parte against OP2.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of purchase bill, Xerox copy of free AC standard installation coupon, Xerox copy of service completion certificate dated 09-06-2016, Xerox copy of service completion certificate dated 27-06-2016, Xerox copy of email dated 21-03-2016, Xerox copy of email dated 25-03-2016 and other documents on record.
The complainant as we find raised problem of manufacturing defect of the subject AC machine. It also appears that he complainant purchased 1.5 ton air-conditioner from OP2 on 14-05-2015 at a price of 35,300/-. It has been alleged by the complainant that it has not even been a year he had to refill/charge gas twice in the machine through the service provider and the service provider still said that there is some sort of leak and, as such, there is some manufacturing defect of machine. The complainant has also prayed for a direction upon the OP to change the AC machine. The OP, however, has stated that there is no fault in the AC machine and there was fault relating to leakage of refrigerant which was duly rectified and the AC is working is absolutely fine.
As regards the obligation of manufacturing defect is concerned, there is no expert evidence or opinion before us. Moreover, we find that the complainant officially informed OP about the product on 21-03-2016 vide email. We also find that the technician visited the place of the complainant and inspected the AC machine on 09-06-2016 and charged gas. It appears from the evidence of the complainant that OP’s men came to the residence of the complainant on 09-06-2016 and opened the air-conditioning unit and OP also returned the machine on 27-06-2016 refilling the gas. So, it appears that the machine at present is working and the defect was rectified. There is no expert report before us that the machine was suffers from manufacturing defect. It also appears that complainant has enjoyed the benefit of AC in the summer of 2015 and 2016, however, it also appears that the machine demonstrated problem of gas leakage and gas was also charged twice since after the purchase of the AC machine. In the present circumstances, as the subject AC unit is working and the defect is rectified we do not feel inclined to pass any order for replacement of AC unit or refund of price. However, we gather from the materials on record that the service personnel of the OP company agreed to provide extended warrantee to the complainant for the product and accordingly, we also direct the OPs to extend the warrantee period for one year.
Consequently, the case merits success in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That instant case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against OP1 and dismissed ex parte against OP2.
OP1 is directed to provide extended warranty for one year to the complainant in respect of subject A.C. within 15 days from the date of this order
OP1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost within the said stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
