DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 321/2016

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service in selling the defective AC and then not providing the proper services. 

1. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that he purchased a Split Air Conditioner  on 27.05.2015 from OP1 as manufactured by OP2 along with Stabilizer of OP2 Company for an amount of Rs.41,000/- which was covering one year warranty/service contract for a period of 12 months from 27.05.2015 to 26.05.2016 and warranty of compressor for seven years.  The AC worked properly for about 10-15 days but thereafter started creating problem i.e. bad smell, heavy water leakage and even the auto swing of the AC was not working properly and complaint was lodged with the OP but no services were provided and ultimately the said AC became unusable and several complaint oral as well as written were made including this complaint dated 21.05.2016 being complaint number 16052102276, the reply of which was received on 31.05.2016 but the problem in the AC was not rectified within 48 hours rather was attended to by the OP centre, after several months with the assurance that it would work properly but thereafter the said AC again started creating problem regularly for which complaint was made w.r.t. throwing of access water which even has damaged the LED TV of the complainant and as such the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP thereby asking the OP for replacement of the AC along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.25,000/-. 
2. OP1 could not be served for substantive long period as the correct address of OP1 was not provided and ultimately it was served on 19.04.2016 but it did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.12.2022. 
3. OP2 was served and has filed its reply and it is interalia stated that OP2 is a company registered under Companies Act and is engaged in a business of Manufacturing and Selling of the Refrigerator/ACs under its own brand name having its outlet all over India and the Refrigerator (wrongly stated as this is a case of TV) was sold with one year warranty and under the warranty clause the company has to carry out the repairs, free of cost when the product is under warranty and in case the warranty of product is expired or warranty clauses, are violated then Company would repair the product on chargeable basis.  The complainant has used the said product with complete satisfaction without any technical issue within the warranty period and as such there is no case of deficiency in service as alleged.  There is no manufacturing defect alleged in the said AC and therefore the complaint case against OP2 is not maintainable and even otherwise there is no opinion of the expert which may entitle the complainant for replacement of the AC as it is well settled law that in case of manufacturing defect only the product would be replaced, that too, after obtaining the report of the expert which is not available in this matter.  It is further submitted that complainant never reported the issue in the product to the OP2.  There is no job sheet attached with the complaint.  Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OP2 and otherwise also the OP2 has always been ready and have attended the complaint whenever the complaint was made, by the complainant and accordingly it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
4. Complainant has filed Rejoinder to the written statement of OP2 and has filed his own evidence whereas OP has filed evidence of Sh. Akhil Kumar AR, by way of affidavit. 
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
6.  Few facts are relevant i.e. the complainant purchased the product for Rs.41,000/- on 27.05.2015, the first complaint in writing was made on 21.05.2016 i.e 6 days less than one year i.e. warranty period that complaint was attended to by the OP2 and as per the complaint there is no complaint in writing after the error was removed.  Although the complainant submits in Para 6 of the complaint that there are several complaint made oral as well as in writing but on record there is only one complaint i.e. dated 21.05.2016.  In next para he submit that the problem was not attended within 48 hours but was rectified in several months and the fact is without giving any date as to when this complaint was ultimately attended.  It is also matter of record that complainant only mentioned three documents in support of the complaint  i.e. copy of the retail invoice dated 27.05.2015 copy of service sheet dated 31.05.2016 and it is written that ‘various communication’ were made in between the parties, but these ‘various communications’ have not been placed on record.  It is also a matter of record that after the complaint was attended to although with delay there is not a specific date in the entire complaint, running from para 8 to para 14 as to when the next complaint in writing was made by the complainant to OP.  There is no record in writing.  The allegation of the complainant is that the AC was throwing extra water, its swing system was not working properly, it was giving bad smell and so on and so forth but there is not even a single document to appreciate this contention nor there is any complaint in writing that OP was ever told by the complainant about these problems.  Therefore, the only compliant which the complainant made has been admittedly attended to and accordingly in absence of any further complaint the complainant has not been able to prove that there is any deficiency on the part of OP1 and OP2.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.     

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.   

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 24.01.2024.