DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 395
Instituted on: 08.08.2017
Decided on: 10.10.2017
Krishan Kumar son of Shri Sohan Lal, resident of Arihant Colony, Near Bus Stand, Cheema Mandi, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Daikin Airconditioning India Private Limited, 210, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-3, Delhi-110 020 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s.Ganpati Electronics, Naya Bazar, Sunam, District Sangrur through its partner.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.
For OPs : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Krishan Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 28.3.2017, the complainant approached the Op number 2 and purchased one air conditioner manufactured by Op number 1 for Rs.42,000/- vide bill number 1367 dated 28.3.2017. Further case of the complainant is that the air conditioner in question was got installed by the complainant on 23.5.2017 from the mechanic/engineer of the OP number 2. It is stated further that the air conditioner in question was having a warranty of 12 months as a whole and 48 months for the compressor. The grievance of the complainant is that the air conditioner in question left the cooling in total on 15.6.2017 i.e. mere after 23 days of its installation, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 and mechanic of the Op number 2 visited the spot and replaced the outer unit of the air conditioner on 18.6.2017 and assured that it will not create any problem in future. Thereafter the air conditioner in question left the cooling again on 1.7.2017 and the OPs replaced the gas of the air conditioner in question on 6.7.2017, but again the cooling was not proper and left the cooling on 16.7.2017. Thereafter the complainant again approached the Ops, but all in vain. The complainant even requested the Ops to replace the air conditioner with a new one, but of no use. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the air conditioner in question along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the Ops did not appear despite service, as such, they were proceeded exparte.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of warranty card and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the air conditioner model Eco Inverter 1.5 TR for Rs.42,000/- by the complainant. Ex.C-3 is the copy of warranty card, which clearly shows that it has a comprehensive warranty of 12 months. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question on 28.3.2017 and was got installed on 23.5.2017 from the OP number 2, but the fact remains that the air conditioner in question developed defects of cooling thereafter and the Ops failed to set right the cooling despite replacing the outer unit of the air conditioner on 18.6.2017. We may mention that the Ops chose to remain exparte and did not appear before this Forum to rebut the contention of the complainant. It is on the record that the air conditioner in question developed defects in the very short span of its purchase and even during the warranty period and the complainant even filed the complaint before this Forum during the warranty period. In the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice by supplying the complainant a defective air conditioner. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserves the refund of the amount so spent by him on the purchase of the air conditioner in question.
6. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.42,000/- being the cost of the air conditioner. We further direct the complainant to return the air conditioner in question at the time of taking the refund of the amount. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
October 10, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
