3. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office Address 210, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3, Delhi- 110020
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. Sushil Mehta, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is Authorized Dealer of Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., at Milap Road, Jalandhar City (Punjab). The complainant had purchased one Split Air Conditioner of 1.5 Ton 3 Star Copper DTL50TV16V2 from the OP No.1 against Tax Invoice No.Trts-20/444 dated 28.06.2019 against Rs.32,100/-. The one year Guarantee/Warranty. After using AC some days, the complainant got some problem (not proper cooling) in the said System and contact to OP No.1, who given customer care no. of the Daikin Company to lodge complaint. The compliant lodge the complaint to customer care and the technician visit his home 3-4 times, but the problem was not solved. The complainant again complaint to the customer care that AC is not working not giving proper cooling, then technician again visit his home and changed the gas on 18.07.2019 against job card copy enclosed and compliant remarks ‘Please under observation 06 (ix) days and signed on 18/7/2019. Till the time of purchase the Air Conditioning the AC is not working properly and after so many visit of Technician the problems are not solved. The complainant get service his AC from the company against Job Card No.2615 dated 02.06.2020, but the same is not working satisfactory and complainant again remarked that "I am not satisfied long time. Daikin AC cooling pls see accordingly". Since the date of purchase the AC is not working properly and the complainant complaint to the company again and again, but not satisfied with their service. He also request the company to change the set as he feel the set is defected, but the company not giving satisfied answer to the complainant nor change the set, which is under Guarantee/Warranty. From the above it is clear that OP has not kept their commitment regarding guarantee/warranty of the product and not rectified the problem as per the satisfaction of the complainant. Due to the above said facts there is negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to provide new Air Conditioner against the old one or to return the amount of Rs.32,100/- & compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but regd. Cover of OP No.3 not received back after elapsing of more than thirty days and ultimately OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action or part of cause of action have arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and his complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. It is further averred that by virtue of terms and conditions of the warranty card, complainant himself has agreed to the jurisdiction at Delhi, hence filing of consumer complaint at Jalandhar is not permissible since the complainant already agreed to jurisdiction at Delhi and furthermore, without prejudice and in alternative to the contention raised above, hence this complaint is liable to dismissed on this ground itself. It is further averred that in the present case OPs No.2 & 3 provided only warranty of the products and replacement of the defective part of the product if any and subject to terms and condition of the product of warranty card. The basis meaning of the word Warranty means the repair or the change of damaged product if within warranty. The basic meaning of the word Guarantee means replacement of the product which is in Guarantee period. It is stated that OPs No.2 & 3 i.e. Daikin provides only warranty of its product not Guarantee so it is categorically proved that there is no question arise for replacement of entire Air conditioning unit in this case. Hence present complaint is not maintainable for replacement of entire Air conditioning unit. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the AC from OP No.1, which was manufactured by the OPs No.2 and 3 on 28.06.2019 for Rs.32,021/-, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the AC from OP No.1, which was manufactured by the OPs No.2 and 3, on 28.06.2019 for Rs.32,021/-. Delivery Challan and Tax Invoice have been proved as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-1 respectively. The complainant has alleged that after some days, the AC started giving problem and there was a cooling problem. The OP was duly informed. The mechanic of OP visited the house number of times, but the problem could not be solved.
7 On the other hand, the OPs have alleged that the complainant has not contacted the OP till 25.06.2020 and till then he used the AC. Mechanic visited the house of the complainant and the grievance of the complainant was redressed. The complainant was satisfied, even the Mechanic was also satisfied.
8. The contention of the OPs that the complainant contacted them for the first time on 25.06.2020, is not tenable and is falsified from the documents filed on record by the complainant as well as the OP. The complainant has proved on record the service completion certificate Ex.C-3 i.e. dated 18.07.2019. This document has been filed by the OP also, which has been proved as Ex.O-5, but the OP has alleged in para No.17 of written statement that for the first time, the complainant approached the OPs on 25.06.2020 meaning thereby, the complainant approached the OPs much prior to 25.06.2020 as alleged. Ex.C-3/Ex.O-5 shows that gas charging was done as per column ‘Diagnosed and Details of Repair Work Done’. The complainant was asked to keep under observation for 6 days. This document shows that the AC was sent for repair after 20 days of the purchase of the vehicle and need arose to charge gas. Ex.C4 is the service completion certificate dated 02.06.2020 and as per this, the Wet Service AC was done. Though, the Mechanic has alleged the working OK, but the customer i.e. the complainant gave a statement that he is not satisfied long time Daikin AC cooling, meaning thereby that the problem of cooling was allegedly solved till 02.06.2020. The OP has relied upon Ex.O-2 which they alleged the complainant informed the OP for the first time, shows that it is dated 25.06.2020. This document shows that the problem again arose after 20 days of the service in which the Mechanic has given OK report. The column of remarks of Mechanic is not legible. In the column of Customer Remarks, the complainant has given the remarks that Fan of sound and the complainant is not satisfied from the date of purchase for cooling. All these documents shows that the complainant is making complaint time and again after 20 days of its purchase to the OP regarding the working and cooling of the AC, but the OP has not taken care of. Thus, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is proved. The OP No.1, though exparte has sold the product, manufactured by the OPs No.2 & 3. The OP No.1 has given the customer care number of the OPs No.2 and 3 to the complainant to lodge complaint. Thus, no negligence or unfair trade practice has been alleged and proved against the OP No.1. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed against OPs No.2 & 3.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed qua OPs No.2 & 3 and dismissed against OP No.1. The OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to refund the amount of the AC, which was paid by the complainant and the complainant is directed to return the defective AC to the OPs No.2 & 3 at the time of receiving the award amount. Further, the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8000/- for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
06.12.2023 Member President
