ORDER
NIPUR CHANDANA
Complainant purchased one windows AC brand (O-General) for
Rs 29,400/-from the shop of OP1 on 9-06-2004 vide invoice
no. 281, and on the same day OP1 installed the aforesaid AC
It is alleged by the complainant that on 9-7-2014 the
aforesaid AC started giving problems in flow, low cooling
and as such he registered a complaint with OP2 at his
customer care center vide complaint no. DEL 11407050139.
It is further stated by the complainant that on
his complaint an engineer Ramchander of the OP2 visitied
his house and demanded warrantee card which was not
provided by OP1 and as such the aforesaid engineer did not
attend the complaint. The complainant complained in this
regard to OP1 , who assured him that he will call the
service enginner and who will attend the complaint on the
Again on 22-8-2014 , complainant registered a
complaint with OP2 vide complaint no. DEL 11408220266.
Again the engineer visited his house and demanded from him.
The warranty card and also stated that the serial no. of
the AC did not match with their serial number and hence he
is unable to provide service to him.
It is further alleged by the complainant that after
his persistent demands OP1 provided him a warranty card,
Page 2 of 6
and he again lodged a complaint with OP2 on 1-10-2014 ,
vide complaint no DEL114100010171. Again Mr. Ram Chander
visited his house and asked the complainant to e-mail the
warranty card to OP2 to verify the same. After
verification, Engineer Ram Chand informed the complainant
that serial no. of AC i.e. T012622 does not match with
their record as well as the warranty card having serial no.
T000432 issued was not having correct serial number of the
It is alleged by the complainant that he again
complaint to OP1 vide e-mail dated 15-10=2014 regarding the
mismatch of the serial no. of AC and the serial no.
mentioned on the warranty card. The OP neither gave any
response to this e-mail her provided the correct serial no.
of AC unit as well as warranty card to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
Notices of the complaint were sent to the Ops through
registered AD Post on 11-12-2014. Despite notice none
appeared on behalf of OP1 , therefore, it was ordered to
be proceeded with ex-parte. OP2, appeared and filed its
written statement . Para no. 6 and 7 of the reply on
merits of the written statement is relevant and are
reproduced as under:-
6. Contents of para 6 of the complaint are
admitted to the extent that on22.08.2014 the
technician of the answering opposite party
refused to check the AC without seeing the
Page 3 of 6
warrantee card of the AC. As has already been
stated in the foregoing para of the written
statement the complainant has not purchased the
AC from the authorized dealer of the answering
opposite party and the AC of the answering
opposite party is neither manufactured nor
marketed by the answering opposite party and as
such it was not covered under any warrantee or
guaranty of the answering opposite party and
the technician of the answering opposite party
rightly refused to check the AC of the
complainant.That will not be out of context to
state here that the serial number of the AC of
the complainant does not match with the records
of the answering opposite party and thus it is
clear that it is not a product of the answering
opposite party.
7.Contents of para 7 of the complaint are not
disputed. The technician of the answering
opposite party checked the AC of the
complainant thoroughly and found that the said
AC is not a product of the answering opposite
party and the serial number of the AC is also
not tallying with the serial number mentioned
on the product warrantee card obtained by the
complainant after 3 months from the date of its
purchase as such the answering opposite party
did not provide any service to the complainant.
Page 4 of 6
Both the parties have filed this evidence by way of
We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have
Counsel for the OP2 has contended that the complainant had
not purchased the AC from the authorized dealer of the OP2 . AC
of the complainant is neither manufactured nor marketed by the
OP2 and as such it was not covered under any warrantee or
It is further contended by the counsel for the OP2 that
serial number of AC of the complainant does not match with the
record of OP2. Even the serial number of AC does not match with
number mentioned the product warrantee card of the AC and as
such it is not a product of OP2. He prayed for dismissal of the
We are In agreement with the counsel for OP2 . Complaint
himself has admitted in his complaint that he had purchased the
allegd AC from OP1. He himself has admitted that OP1 had
provided him the warranty card after 3-4 months of purchase .
The bare perusal of the document placed on record reveals the
truthfulness of the facts mentioned by OP2 in his written
We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the
complainant is not a consumer of OP2 and such OP2 is not liable
for any deficiency in service towards complainants. It is OP1
who is liable for deficiency in service to the the complainant
as OP1 had sold an defectice AC to the complainant with the
mismatch seraial no of AC and warranty card.
Page 5 of 6
We, therefore, hold OP1 guilty of deficiency in service and
1. To refund to the complainant a sum of Rs 29,400/- (cost of
AC) along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing
of this complaint i.e. 3-12-2014 till payment.
2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for pain
and mental agony suffered by him.
3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as cost of
4. To take back the AC after making aforesaid payment.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a
period of 30 days from the date of this
order failing which they shall be liable to
pay interest on the entire awarded amount @
10% per annum. IF the OP1 fails to comply
with this order, the complainant may
approach this Forum for execution of the
order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer
Copy of the order be made available to
the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum
on.....................
