DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/483.

Date of Institution   : 04.07.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 22.07.2022.

Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Balwant Singh resident of D-7/6714 (123-A) Gali No. 6, Ram Nagar Colony, Amritsar. 

                …Complainant Versus

1.Harman Enterprises Shop No. 325 Ground Floor Tilak Nagar B/s Shivala Bhayia Near Anadpur Di Kutia Amritsar through authorized person.

2.Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. Having regd. Office at 210 Okhla Industrial Area Phase 3 Delhi through authorized person. 

3.Bahadar Chand & Co. Hall Bazar Amritsar through authorized person. 

                 …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

Present: Sh. H.S. Batra Adv counsel for complainant.

None for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Vikas Verma Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Opposite party No. 3 exparte. 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Harman Enterprises and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner branded as Daikin vide No. FTC42SRV162 12T 3S AC Dakin TF vide bill No. TF1299 dated 29.6.2017 for Rs. 35,500/- from the opposite party No. 3, who is authorized dealer of Dakin and the same handed over to the opposite party No. 1 for repair, who is authorized service centre for the Dakin Products and the opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer. It is further alleged that firstly the AC had fitted by the authorized engineer after passing a week and the AC was running very well in that season. It is alleged that in the mid of month of May 2018 there are some time sparking in the inner wire of the AC and the complainant made complaint in this regard to the customer care of the company and they forwarded the same to the opposite party No. 1 and the person from the opposite party No. 1 visited and left back without repairing the same. On 14.6.2018 the complainant moved a complaint by way of Email but no proper reply was given by the company or by the authorized person or seller. Thereafter, nobody came from the office of the opposite parties for removing the fault/defect of the AC and the complainant made many calls, but of no use. It is further alleged that as and when the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 for changing the wire with new one but the they refused to do so. Due to the above said act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement till realization. 

ii)To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, initially Sh. Raminder Singh Proprietor appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and filed written version. It is admitted that Sh. Ramesh Kumar complainant purchased the Air Conditioner on 29.6.2017. It is also admitted that the complaint were lodged by the complainant on 4.6.2018, 5.6.2018, 7.6.2018, 12.6.2018 and on 13.6.2018 as per record filed by the complainant. It is further alleged that the complaint was attended even before also i.e. on 29.5.2018 and it was duly signed by the customer and there was no spark from any wire inside the Air Conditioner and the Air Conditioner is running successfully till today. It is alleged that the complainant is not a technical person and is under wrong impression that there is any spark in the Air Conditioner if there is a spark in the Air Conditioner then the Air Conditioner will not run continuously and it is requested that the third party inspection may be arranged to identify whether there is any spark inside the Air Conditioner or any fault which lies within the warranty condition. Thereafter, from the last so many dates no one has come present on behalf of opposite party No. 1. 

4. Notices were sent to opposite party No. 2 & 3 but they failed to appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2018. But on 9.11.2018 Sh. Vikas Verma Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and requested to join the proceedings at this stage of arguments and vide order dated 9.11.2018 the opposite party No. 2 is allowed to join the proceedings at the stage of arguments. 

5. In support of his case the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint filed his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16.  

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. Written arguments filed by the opposite party No. 2. 

7. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner branded Daikin vide bill No. TF1299 dated 29.6.2017 for Rs. 35,500/- from the opposite party No. 3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also argued that in the month of May 2018 there are some time sparking in the inner wire of the AC and the complainant made complaint in this regard to the customer care of the company and the person from the opposite party No. 1 visited the premises and left back without repairing the same. It is further argued that on 14.6.2018 the complainant moved a complaint by way of Email but no proper reply was given by the company or by the authorized person or seller and thereafter nobody came from the office of the opposite parties for removing the fault/defect of the AC. 

8. The opposite party No. 1 in its written version alleged that  the complainant purchased the Air Conditioner on 29.6.2017 and the first complaint was lodged by him twice on 4.6.2018, then on 5.6.2018, then twice on 7.6.2018, then twice on 12.6.2018, then twice on 13.6.2018. But the complaint was attended even before also i.e. on 29.5.2018 and it was duly signed by the customer and there was no spark from any wire inside the Air Conditioner and the Air Conditioner is running successfully till today. It is further alleged by the opposite party No. 1 in its written version that the complainant is not a technical person and is under wrong impression that there is any spark in the Air Conditioner if there is a spark in the Air Conditioner then the Air Conditioner will not run continuously. 

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 argued that in the present case there was a minor issue of sparking of inner wire which connects MCB and Outdoor Unit of the AC. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 further argued that the said AC unit did not have any manufacturing defect as the product was working completely fine. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 that the present complaint relates to defect in goods which can only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods as per the mandatory provision contained under the Consumer Protection Act. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 further argued that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defects in the product.  

10. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has relied upon the judgments of The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 vide which it is held that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

11. Further the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

Both these citations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant has not filed any expert report, so failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the above said Air Conditioner. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the  present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.   

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       22nd Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member