DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.231 of 28-05-2013

Decided on 11-09-2013

Shamsher Singh aged about 42 years S/o Mool Chand R/o near Bibi Paro Mandir, Phul Town, Tehsil Phul & Distt. Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., Regd office F25/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, through its M.D.

2.M/s Garg TV & Fridge Sales Corporation, near Gole Diggi, Bathinda (Distributor at Bathinda) through its Prop/Partner Akhil Garg.

3.M/s Bajaj Electric & Watch Service, Main Bazar, Rampura Phul, through its Prop./Partner.

4.M/s Micro Cool Regrigeration,, St. No.2-B, Ajit Road Bathinda (service centre), through its Prop/Partner Amrik Singh.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Shamsher Singh, complainant in person.

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on the allurement of the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased one Daikin AC No.AE50MV16 Sputal for Rs.31,000/- vide invoice No.3792 dated 20.6.2012 from the opposite party No.3 with 12 months guarantee/warranty. The said Air Conditioner was not working properly as there was problem relating to cooling. The opposite parties closed the complaint of the complainant after refilling the gas in the said Air Conditioner on 15.5.2013, where the problem relating to cooling was not rectified. The complainant made the complaints to the opposite parties since 6.5.2013 i.e. complaint No.IXC 130502598, IXC 130509756, IXC 130509885, IXC 130506217. The complaints of the complainant were attended to by the opposite parties as they tried to remove the defect but the defect remained as it is. The service dealer told him that there is some manufacturing defect in the said Air Conditioner. The complainant has purchased the abovesaid Air Conditioner in the hot summer days for the comfort of his family but he was unable to use the same due to the defects in it. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to replace the said defective Air Conditioner with new one with fresh warranty of 12 months alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Registered notice was sent to the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 on dated 5.7.2013 and the opposite party Nos.2 and 4 were served Dasti but none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties before this Forum despite receiving the summons, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against all the opposite parties.

3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1 his own affidavit dated 28.5.2013; Ex.C2 photocopy of retail invoice dated 20.6.2012 and Ex.C3 photocopy of warranty.

4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the complainant heard at length. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant perused.

5. The complainant has purchased one Daikin Air Conditioner from the opposite party No.3 vide Ex.C2, invoice No.3792 dated 20.6.2012 for Rs.31,000/- with 12 months warranty. Since its purchase, the said Air Conditioner is not giving the proper cooling. The complainant has made complaints in this regard to the opposite parties on dated 15.5.2013. The opposite parties refilled the gas in the said Air Conditioner and closed the complaint of the complainant without rectifying the said Air Conditioner. Again the complainant has been making the complaints since 6.5.2013 vide complaints No.IXC 130502598, IXC 130509756, IXC 130509885, IXC 130506217. In his written submission, the complainant submitted that the opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.4000/- as installation charges after refilling the gas on dated 17.5.2013 and the installation of the said Air Conditioner was done wrong. The complainant has also made few calls to Ved Parkash and Manpreet engineers. But nothing has been averred regarding the installation charges of Rs.4000/- by the complainant or making his calls to Ved Parkash and Manpreet in his main complaint, hence, an afterthought.

6. The non appearance of the opposite parties is sufficient to prove the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part as they instead of appearing before this Forum and filing their written statement or to contest the complaint have not even sent their reply through post or in any other way, which shows their malafide intention and their admission that the said Air Conditioner is a defective piece, having manufacturing defect in it. No job sheets are placed on file by the complainant. The inference can be drawn that no job sheets regarding his complaints were ever issued to the complainant. Moreover despite repeated repairs the opposite parties have failed to rectify the Air Conditioner in question and the complainant is/was unable to use the said Air Conditioner in summer days for the purpose he has purchased the same.

7. Thus in view of what has been discussed above the premises can be drawn that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the said Air Conditioner and in order to shed their liability, the opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation and the cost of Rs.1000/- will be paid by the opposite party No.3 separately and the remaining amount of Rs.4000/- of cost and compensation be paid jointly and severally by the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4. The opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 are further directed to replace the said Air Conditioner with new one with same specification, model and brand with fresh warranty as per the warranty given by the company on the such like products and at the same time the complainant will handover the old Air Conditioner to the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4.

8. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum

11-09-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member