BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 472 of 2015
Date of Institution: 30.7.2015
Date of Decision: 4.5.2016
Jaswinder Pal Singh S/o Baldev Singh R/o VPO Mahal, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- M/s. International Electronics Agency, 37-A, The Mall, Amritsar through its Proprietor/Partner/Principal Officer
- Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt.Ltd., 12th Floor Building No. 9, Tower A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase 3, Gurgaon 122002 Haryana
Opposite Parties
Complaint under sections 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Updip Singh,Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite party No.2 : Sh.Vikas Verma,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Jaswinderpal Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased one Air conditioner (hereinafter referred AC) model No. “FT50MV16 Capacity 1.5 Ton Rating 4 Star” from opposite party No.1 on 18.6.2014 vide Bill/Invoice No. 3772 for Rs. 39,000/-. The said AC was manufactured by opposite party No.2. The AC had warranty for whole unit for one year and 5 years for its compressor unit. At the time of sale of AC in question, complainant was assured by opposite party No.1 that model and make of AC was the best one in the market with proper and best service back up and the piece which was installed at the premises of the complainant was OK in all respects. On the assurance of opposite party No.1 , AC was purchased by the complainant and the same was installed by engineers of opposite party No.1 at the premises of the complainant. After one month of the installation of the AC, it was not giving proper cooling. But when the matter was reported to opposite party No.1 , technician of opposite party No.1 came and after checking the same , gave one excuse or the other and did not take any effective measure to solve the problem. In this summer again when the same fault was reported repeatedly to opposite parties, no effective measures were taken by the opposite parties to set the AC right. Most of the times, either no job sheet was prepared by engineer of opposite party or no job sheet was provided to the complainant at the time of checking the AC. The technician of opposite party No.1 was not equipped with proper equipments to check the AC. He just felt the cooling and said that it was working OK, whereas low cooling was being felt by the complainant. No instrument was otherwise applied to test the working of the AC . The complainant approached the opposite parties in the month of June and asked for authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 and was surprised to find that no proper service facility was extended by opposite party No.2 at Amritsar. Even after lodging complaint with commercial care of opposite party No.2 and even after repeated reminders, the AC was not working properly, no effort was made by the opposite parties to set the AC right. Hence, the present complaint. Even after legal notice dated 17.6.2015 was served upon opposite parties in this regard but of no fruitful result. As a matter of fact the opposite parties have selling defective piece of AC with manufacturing defects and they have also failed to provide after sale service which is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(i) Opposite parties be directed to replace the AC with new one with fresh warranty or refund Rs. 39000/- , price of AC charged, with interest @ 18% p.a.
(ii) Pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 25000/- for harassment as well as mental agony ;
(iii) Pay cost of complaint to the tune of Rs. 5500/-
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice both opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared .
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant has concealed and suppressed the material facts, as such the present complaint is not maintainable ; that there are no manufacturing defect in the AC in dispute. The present complaint has been filed on concocted facts and complainant has no cause of action to file the present case. In parawise reply , it is submitted that AC was purchased by the complainant and the same was installed at his premises to his full satisfaction. The complainant grievances were duly attended to by opposite parties No.1 & 2 and provided him service visits from time to time as required . In the present case complainant was highly influenced by the remarks of his neighbours and anticipated that the machine will not work in future though currently it was giving effective cooling as per its make & standard. It is stated that as per the inspection made by the service staff, the location of the premises of the complainant was quite distant from the sewage and there were very remote chances of such situations to occur in the future. Even if it occurs, opposite party has no control over it as it is an atmospheric condition . Moreover, complainant only had an anticipation of the problems that may occur in the future and nothing in reality has taken place. No problem of gas leakage actually took place. It is denied that no proper facility was provided by opposite party No.2 in Amritsar. The Technicians of the opposite parties are fully and properly trained as well as no such complaint was ever received by opposite party No.2 in respect to the alleged misbehaviour of the concerned technician, hence said allegations are misconceived and an afterthought and are denied in totality. Remaining facts stated in the complaint have also been denied specifically and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. Opposite party No.1 did not file any separate written statement . Vide separate statement, counsel for opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2 on record. As such there is no need to reiterate the allegations made in the written statement filed on behalf of opposite party No.2.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings Sh.Updip Singh,Advocate counsel for the complainant suffered a statement that he did not seek any relief from opposite party No.1 at this stage.
6. In order to prove the case counsel for the complainant Sh.Updip Singh,Adv.tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaswinder Pal Singh,complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill of purchase Ex.C-2, copies of job sheets Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 and copy of legal notice Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Vikas Mahajan,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Roopesh Jain Ex.OP2/1, copy of product warranty card Ex.OP2/2, copies of the service completion certificates Ex.OP2/3 to Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
8. Whereas counsel for opposite party No.1 did not lead any evidence and the evidence adduced by opposite party No.2 was adopted by him for the decision of the complaint.
9. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
10. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the complainant purchased AC model “FT50MV16 Capacity 1.5 Ton” vide bill/invoice, copy whereof is Ex.C-2 for an amount of Rs. 39000/-. It is also in evidence that problem of poor cooling of the AC in dispute arose after one month of its purchase. The complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.1, who asked him to contact opposite party No.2 service centre for redressal of his grievances. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 on different occasions vide job sheets Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. But, however, no problem of the AC was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Rather a vague plea was taken that there was a sewage problem in the near vicinity of the premises where AC was installed and it was an atmospheric problem which could not be resolved. From the very fact that the complainant approached the opposite parties for a number of times for redressal of his grievance and nothing concrete was done . Even legal notice, copy whereof is Ex.C-6 pm record fell on deaf ears as no reply to the same was filed by the opposite parties , which impliedly proves that the opposite parties have admitted that there was manufacturing defect in the device in dispute. In such a situation, claim of the complainant for refund of sale price amounting to Rs. 39000/- of the AC in dispute is found made out against opposite party No.2. As such, opposite party No.2 is directed to refund the value/price of the AC i.e. Rs. 39000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the instant complaint until full and final recovery. Cost of litigation are assessed at Rs. 1000/- . Claim against opposite party No.1 fails and is ordered to be dismissed . Opposite party No.2 is directed to comply with this order within a period of one month of the receipt of copy of the order ; failing which complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 4.5.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
