CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.48/18
- Smt. MAMTA GUPTA
W/O. SHRI LENIN GUPTA
R/O B-4/38, FIRST FLOOR,
SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI-110029
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- DAIKIN INDIA PVT LTD
210, FIRST FLOOR,
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE 3,
DELHI-110020 …OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
- AUTHORISED SERVICE PLAZA,
SAI SERVICE
7B/2TS, KHIRKI EXTENSION
MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI- 110017…OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
Date of Order: 06.12.2021
O R D E R
Rashmi Bansal- Member
As per complaint, the complainant had purchased a Daikin air purifier MC70MDM6 for Rs. 22,500/ on 06.03.2016 from dealer of OP1, for a total sale consideration of ₹ 22,500/- with one year warranty. It is alleged that many claims were made by the OP1 such as it is low maintenance purifier, with powerful deodorisation and deodorising filter for life time, has a long lasting dust collecting filter which needs changing when indicator lamp lights up and that filter removes 99% of PM 2.5. However, the same were proved false and air purifier started giving foul smelling air after few months of use.
Complainant lodged a complaint to this effect with OP’s customer care centre i.e. with OP2 and service of air purifier was done in October 2016. Despite servicing the problem could not be resolved, therefore, another complaint was lodged at customer care and another service was done on 02.12.2016, but this time also, the technician failed to locate the problem with the air purifier and foul smell remained coming out from the air purifier while in use. On further complaint to service centre, i.e. OP2, the technician again inspected air purifier on 12.12.2016 and changed the pleated filter. This is the grievance of the complainant that the problem of bad odour was still not resolved, therefore, seeing no other option, on 09.01.2017, the complainant raised a request with customer care of OP1 for refund of her money as the purifier was not up to the standard as claimed by OP1. On 10.01.2017 technician of OP1, visited the complainant’s house and on checking, reported that deodorising filter was not working. It is alleged that on 10.01.2017 technician also showed that the air purifier removes only 75 percentage of PM 2.5 contrary to the claim of 99%. Technician also informed that the bulb meant for filter change does not work and filter needs to be changed whenever it appears dirty and it may require around four filters per year.
This is, stated by the complainant that on 25. 01.2017, technician took the air purifier to workshop for inspection and replacement of deodorising filters. After approximately 2 months, OP1 has handed over another air purifier, which OP1 claimed to be a replacement. Complainant alleges that the replaced air purifier was not a new one and that it had no catalogue and few parts of it were also missing. This is alleged that OP1 failed to rectify the defects despite several complaints by complainant. The present complaint is filed by the complainant against OP1, praying for the direction to OP1 for refund of the cost of the purifier as ₹ 22,500/-, ₹ 15,000/- as damages/ compensation for deficient service and causing mental harassment beside ₹ 15,000/- as cost of litigation.
Upon notice, initially none appeared and both OP1 and OP2 and they were proceeded ex-parte. Later, in the revision petition filed by OP1, direction were issued by Hon'ble State Commission, to allow OP1 to file reply and evidence. OP2 was remained ex-parte.
OP1 denied any deficiency in service or defect in good, stating that no cause of action arises against it. Complainant has made this complaint with mala-fide intention to bring bad name to OP1 and to usurp its money, who is a big name in the electronic goods. OP1 claims that complainant has failed to understand correct technical functioning of the air purifier and that there is no defect in air purifier unit manufactured by OP1.
OP1 further states that the complaints lodged by the complainant were duly attended by it. As per warranty clause the warranty is valid only for one year and does not cover filter which is a consumable good. The contention of OP1 is that the technician was ready to change the cover filter but complainant was not ready to pay the price for the same, therefore, filter was not replaced on the first service. It is further stated by OP1 that four filters were provided to complainant along with the product as replacement of filter is required once in every two year if the said product is used at a place where the pollution level is equivalent to the small smoke of 10 cigarettes per day and therefore four filters were enough for replacement during the warranty period of the said machine and if the requirement of the complainant is more, then OP1 is ready to provide it on chargeable basis.
This is also stated by OP1 that matter is covered under section 13 (1)(C) to (G) of 1986 Act and since the alleged complaint relates to defect in the goods, the same can only be determined with proper analysis or test of the good. Further, there is no loss or damage caused to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. Hence complaint does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and is liable to be dismissed.
Both the parties filed their affidavit by way of evidence and the relevant documents, along with their written arguments. Heard and perused the complaint.
Admittedly, all the complaints of complainant has been attended by the representative of OP1. Repeated services dated 20.10.2016, 02.12.16, 12.12.2016, 10.01.17, 25.01.17, has been done during a short span of time and on 25.01.2017 the machinery has been taken to Workshop for investigation and replacement of filter, and finally the said unit has been replaced by the OP1 in April 2017 through authorised service provider because complainant was insisting for the refund of the product. The OP1 has given no reason to show that when the said unit was defect free, as claimed by OP1, why the same has been replaced and why the unit has required so many services, in which short comings were found by the technician of OP1 itself. .
On the one hand, OP1 is saying that every complaint has been attended by its representative / technician and defects rectified. On the other hand, it says that the air purifier is not having any defect despite the fact that they were rectifying the damages and changed the filter and ACL too. OP1 itself has made self -contradictory statements.
This is admitted by OP1, vide service completion certificate dated 10.01.2017, that the unit deodorising filter was not working and further on 24.01.2017, that there is a smell problem in the machinery and on 05.04.2017 that ACL has been changed.
This is also admitted by OP1 that some clogging issues were found by its technician, in the filter of the said product, on the first visit in the year 2016 itself and for which the technician of OP1 has advised complainant to get the filter replaced though on chargeable basis, which fact give strength to the conclusion that air purifier was defective right from the starting.
The defect in air purifier were not removed completely as after few days of every service again same problem surfaced. The Service vouchers as placed by complainant shows that there is endorsement of the defects as well as of the objection of the complainant on every voucher that the complaint still exist and the air purifier is not working effectively.
The benefit of Section 13(1) (c) to (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as claimed by the OP1, is not available to OP1 in the present case, where OP1 has itself admitted in service completion certificate dated 10.01.2017 that product deodorising filter was not working. OP1’s contention that alleged complaint relates to deficiency in service and defective good, can only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods is, hereby, rejected in view of the admitted defects in the air purifier made by the technician / experts of the OP1 itself. Need for any further examination by any technical expert does not arise under such circumstances.
Though OP1 alleged mala - fide, bad faith, dishonest intention on the part of the complainant, and that complainant has distorted and twisted facts to misled the Forum. He alleged further that complainant has approached the Hon'ble Forum with unclean hand, but has failed to mention / explain how and in what manner the complainant has done this.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the air purifier started creating problem within warranty period and the defects complained of, could not be rectified by OP1, even after repeated complaints and visits by its engineer / technician and despite change of the filter and trial of other modalities to make the air purifier working. The replacement of the unit by the OP1, that too after two months of taking the air purifier to workshop for inspection, further establish the fact that the air purifier, originally given to complainant, was defective. Moreover, the allegation of the complainant that even the replaced air purifier, given to her, was also having defects, being an old purifier, is proved by the complainant. When even the replaced air purifier was not operating properly and was not a new one, the complainant cannot be compelled to retain it and therefore, is entitled to refund of the amount of the air purifier.
Therefore, the Commission directs as under :-
OP1is directed to refund the cost of the Air purifier being ₹ 22,500/- along with compensation of rupees ₹ 7000/- and litigation cost of rupees 5000/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of this order, failing which the amount of ₹ 22,500/- shall carry interest at the rate 9% per annum thereon from the date of order till the payment is made.
Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (A.K. KUHAR)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
