Haryana

Kurukshetra

180/2017

Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAlkin Air - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Kashyap

11 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                               Complaint Case No.180 of 2017.

                                                               Date of institution: 01.09.2017.

                                                               Date of decision:11.05.2018.

Satbir Singh, aged 42 years, son of Mam Chand, resident of VPO Amargarh Majhara, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                             Versus

1. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., F-25/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110 020, through its proprietor/partner.
2. M/s. Moon Light Traders, Shardhanand Chowk, Red-Road, Kurukshetra through its proprietor/partner. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE         SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                   Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

         

Present:        Sh. Jitender Kasyap, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Sh. O.P.Paruthi, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

                   Op No.1 exparte.

                  

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Satbir Singh against Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. and another, the opposite parties.

2.                It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased one 1½ tone Split A.C. from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.45,900/- vide bill No.7912 dt. 05.06.2017.  It is alleged that on the same day, the Op No.1 sent its employee and installed the A.C. and they also installed the stabilizer.  The Op also charged Rs.2,000/- for labour and Rs.4600/- for stabilizer.  It is further alleged from the very beginning, the said A.C. became defective and the complainant approached the Ops regarding the defective A.C.  It is further alleged that on 24.07.2017, the employee of Ops took back the A.C. with them and assured that the said A.C. will be repaired but the Ops did not repair the said A.C.  The complainant made several complaints telephonically and through e-mails but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.70,000/- to the complainant on account of price of A.C. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.  

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 12.10.2017.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant had purchased the A.C. from the shop of answering Op on 05.06.2017.  The answering Op had sold the said A.C. of good and better quality and gave the warranty as per company conditions.  It was also mentioned in the bill/invoice dt. 05.06.2017 that the complainant would get the service benefits/warranty benefits from the authorized service-centre of the company, which is situated at Kailash Nagar, Kurukshetra in the name of Thati Service Centre, Kurukshetra.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                 Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.                 We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                 From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 05.06.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.45,900/-. From the perusal of record available on the file, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period. From the perusal of job-sheet, Ex.C2, it is clear that the A.C. was not repaired by the Op No.1 and it is reported in the column of details of Repair Work “AC uninstalled”.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.1, who is manufacturer of the unit in question.

7.                In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.1 to replace the defective A.C. of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the bill and accessories, if any, with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:11.05.2018.  

                                                                                      (G.C.Garg)

                                                                                      President.

(Kapil Dev Sharma)       

                                                Member