Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/247/2021

Vicky Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Electronics, - Opp.Party(s)

Baljeet Sangwan

02 May 2024

ORDER

 

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

 

Complainant had purchased a Daiken split Air Conditioner (for short the AC) from OP no.1 vide invoice no. 947 dated 02.04.2021 with two years warrantee. It is alleged that the AC worked well for 10 days thereafter stopped working.  Complainant requested OP no.1 many times to get it repaired or replaced but the OP no.1 did not repair/replace inspite of many requests. Further it was assured by OP no.1 that this AC is genuine and had copper condenser.  But there is no copper condenser in it, instead it is made of aluminum condenser. It is averred that complainant made many requests to OPs to change defective Air Conditioner but they flatly refused to change the AC. The complainant also sent a legal notice upon the OP no.1 through his counsel, but the OP no.1 did not pay any heed towards the complaint of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                     It is next submitted that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint to either replace the defective AC with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of causing mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- litigation expenses.
3. 3.                        In the reply filed by OP no.1 i.e. Deepak Electronic from whom AC was purchased by the complaint, the technician/engineer visited the site and checked the air conditioner. The technician/engineer appraised and informed complainant that there is no defect in the unit and the same was working properly but the complainant did not listen to the genuine approach of the answering company and without any rhyme and reason, started demanding new AC. It was submitted that the unit in question was having no defect and working properly but the complainant without any reason, escalated the matter and just only to satisfy the ego. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the OP no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua OP no.1.
4. In the reply filed by the OP no.2 i.e. Daikin AirConditioning India Private Ltd. (manufacturer of the AC), it was mentioned that the AC was purchased and installed by an unauthorized agent i.e. OP no.1, who is not authorized agent of OP no.2. Hence OP no.2 is not otherwise liable for the act of the unauthorized installation which is in breach of the terms and conditions of the warranty as mentioned in the warranty card. The terms and conditions  of the warranty clearly goes to establish that for the purpose of  claiming any replacement of the product and other services the product must be  installed only from Daikin Airconditioning India Private Ltd. DAIPL or an authorized dealer or distributor of DAIPL. However in the present case, the product is not installed by the authorized dealer or distributor of DAIPL. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part , a final submission is made to dismiss the  complaint.
5. The complainant to prove his case has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A and document Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence on 06.04.2023.
6. The counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-2/A and closed the evidence on 07.07.2023.
7. The Counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A and closed the evidence on 11.12.2023.
8. 8.               We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.
9. It is true that the complainant is the consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act. According to the complainant the AC has manufacturing defect as it stopped working after 10 days from the date of purchase and despite repair, the AC could not work properly. Further it is an admitted fact that the problem in the AC was repeatedly brought to the notice of the OP-1, who in turn attended the complaint but the defects could not be removed despite repeated repair. However, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by not leading any evidence cogent and consistent evidence to prove that the AC was sold by OP no.1 with inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant has neither submitted any expert report to prove manufacturing defect in the AC nor any statement of either of his family members or friends was recorded to prove that the complainant was troubled by the said AC being defective Air conditioner which stopped working after 10 days from the date of purchase and no report from any technician/expert was placed on record/file.
10. 10.              Accordingly, we hold that the present complaint is devoid of any merit and the same deserves dismissal.
11. 11.            With these observations and findings, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. 12.             Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.                                                                    Announced:                                          Dated:02.05.2024