Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant was getting furnishing of a showroom in the end of year 2013 for selling crockery,  kitchen wear, gift items and allied items. It is further stated that representative  of OP1 visited at the showroom and induced the complainant to get install air conditioning machine manufactured by OP2. It is stated that OP2 is a world renowned name in the name of manufacturing air condition machines and assured that OP2 would support prompt after sales services and all spare parts are  also  available. It is stated that representatives of OP2 visited the showroom of the complainant and after inspection advised to get install three (3) Casette AC machines  of 2.0 tons in the showroom. It is stated that as the work in the showroom was  lightly to take time, the complainant was reluctant for placing the order but advised to place order for supply  of machine with full advance payment to get attractive off season  discount. It is further stated that complainant was assured that warranty of machines would commence from the  date of installation. It is stated that tempted by the sweet talks of representatives of the OPs, the complainant got induced and given order for three units of Casette AC machines of 2.0 tons for Rs.76,000/- each on 03.01.2014 after making full payment in advance to be installed in April 2014.
2. It is stated  that after few days of installation the complainant found that  water started leaking from all the three machines and on complaint, the representatives and service engineers of OPs  visited the showroom but instead of offering a permanent solution they applied M Seal on the spot of leak to stop the leakage. It is further stated that after few days the problem again arosed and same process was repeated. In the period of almost two  years many a times complainant requested the OPs for a permanent solution as he was assured that all the machines would be replaced. The complainant even telephonically talked with Sh. Sanjeev Punj Service Manager of OP2 several times but was of no use. It is further stated that in the summer of 2016 when complainant started using air conditioning machine again the same problem started. The complainant made three complaints vide complaint no.11605200684 dated 20.05.2016, 11606030446 dated 03.06.2016 and 11606290369 dated 29.06.2016.
3. It is stated that after each complaint the service engineers of OP2 had telephonic discussion but did not  visit showroom and closed the complaint on the pretext that machines are out of warranty and required spared parts are not available. It is stated that complainant reported the problem to the representatives  of OP1 as well who in turn interacted with OP2 but no solution was forth coming and complainant was telephonically advised to get  install new machines by the representatives of OPs. It is further stated that no serious effort  is being made to solve the grievances of complainant by the OPs  and OPs did not provide after sales services. It is stated that complainant has been made to suffer the loses only due to lapses and deficiency in service on the part  of OPs who engaged  in restrictive and unfair trade practice.
4. It is stated that the non functioning of air conditioning machines is causing huge embarrassment and harassment to the complainant and losses to his business. It is further stated that in the hot and humid delhi weather complainant constrained to work without  having the facility  of  air  conditioning despite no fault and also paid for  expensive machines. It is stated that business  is  suffering as well as customers  are not willing to come to his showroom due to heat and humidity.
5. The complainant is seeking directions to OPs either to repair the air  condition machines at their  own cost or to get them replaced free of cost, to pay compensation for  business loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and pay suitable cost and penalties as per law.
6. OP1 after service appeared but did not filed WS and proceeded  ex parte vide  order dated 14.12.2016.
7. OP2 filed WS and taken preliminary objection that complaint is  based on falsehood and does not disclose  any cause  of action and complainant has not approached with clean hands  and has not disclosed  true, correct and material facts, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the complainant with malafide  intention is insisting the OP for the refund of amount of used AC, compensation, installation charges without any cause  of action or rhyme or reason. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part  of OP2 as best after sale services provided  to customer. It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. On merit all the allegations are  denied and contents  of  preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that complainant after few days of installation never complaint to OP2 regarding the leakage of machine. It is further stated that the representatives of OP2 attend all the complaint made by complainant and after attend the complainant advised to change the spare parts of AC as damaged due to rodant and same was not under  warranty. The OP2 was  always ready to rectify the complaint of the complainant subject to payment of charges which was  flatly refused, therefore, complaint was cancelled. The complainant also  refused to pay visitation charges to the representative /engineer who  attended the complaint. It is stated that complainant is not entitled to  any relief.
9. Complainant filed replication to the WS of OP2 and denied  all the allegations made  therein and reiterated contents of complaint. It is stated that complainant is entitled for  all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
10. Complainant filed by way of his affidavit and reiterated  contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on copy of retail invoice Ex.P1.
11. OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sanjay Panday  AR. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. Another affidavit  of Mohd. Aaqib Service Technician also filed who visited complainant site on 28.12.2016.
12. Written arguments filed  on behalf of complainant as well as  OP2.
13. We  have heard complainant in person. None appeared on behalf of OP2 despite given sufficient opportunity for oral final arguments. We  have gone through the record.
14. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased three cassettes AC 2.0 tone of O General Co. on 03.01.2014 for Rs 2,28,000/- for his showroom on the assurance of representative of OP-1 and OP-2. As per retail invoice OP-1 is the company who is selling the Air Conditioners of several companies such as O General, Carrier, Blue Star, Hitachi, LG, Voltas etc. as per record OP-1did not appear and contested the present complaint and proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2016. OP-2 contested the present case.
15. The grievance of the complainant is that after few days of installation water started leakage from all the three ACs and complainant repeatedly made complaints. The OP-2 did not provide permanent solution but the representative/service engineer applied M seal. The complainant made repeated complaints on 20.05.2016, 03.06.2016 and 29.06.2016 to OP-2. The OP-2 stated that the representative always attended the complaint and it was detected that due to rodent the part of the AC was got damages and same was not under warranty, therefore, complainant is liable to pay the charges but complainant flatly refused and even not paid the visitation charges. As per record OP-2 has filed only one job sheet dated 01.06.2017 according to which “ thermal housing damage in drain side”. This job sheet is after three years of purchase of three air conditioners by the complainant and as per orders of this Commission/Forum dated 29.05.2017.
16. The OP-2 did not file any documentary proof of complaints made by complainant on 20.05.2016, 03.06.2016 and 29.06.2016. The OP-2 also not filed any warranty terms and conditions which establish that the complaints of the complainant with regard to leaking of water from all three machines not covered under the warranty. There is no job sheet filed on record to establish that the problem of leaking  water is due to rodent as alleged by OP-2. Now almost 8 years have been passed and present status of all the three ACs is not available on record.

17. In our considered opinion on the basis of material on record complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP-2. The Air conditioning of the show room is integral part of day to day business of the complainant and same been affected during the summer months as no permanent solution or repair provided by the OP-2.

18. On the basis of above observation and discussion OP-1 being the retailer has no liability to pay compensation for deficiency of service. OP-2 being the manufacturer of three ACs is guilty of deficiency of service therefore, liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/-. In case OP-2 failed to pay above awarded compensation to complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order then liable to pay @9% P.A interest on the above awarded compensation amount. File be consigned to record room.

19. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  03.04.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                          RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER