Delhi

StateCommission

FA/257/2014

DAIKIN AIRCONDIONING INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :25.02.2015

First Appeal No. 257/2014

(Setting aside the order dated 13.01.14 passed in Complaint Case No.330/2013 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Janakpuri, Delhi)

In the matter of

M/s. Daikin Airconditioning India Private Limited

F-25/2, Okhla Industrial Area

Phase-II, New Delhi-110020

……Appellant

 

Versus

Manjit Singh

C-21 Fateh Nagar

Jail Road

New Delhi-110018.

•  

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act) wherein challenge has been made to order dated 13.1.2014 passed by the Consumer District Redressal Forum, Janak Puri, New Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in CC No. 330/2013.
2. The aforesaid complaint case was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that he had purchased three air conditioners from the dealer of appellant on 30.3.2013. There was some fault in one air conditioner from the day of purchase as it was not working. The respondent had alleged that on the report made by him some gas was put in the compressor and the air conditioner started functioning. Again after one week the air conditioner stopped functioning and he had reported the matter to the appellant. After two days of the complaint, two officials had come to check the air conditioner and had stated that there was a fault in the compressor and assured that needful would be done. Again a senior official had come from the office of appellant and assured that compressor would be changed.  The respondent waited for 2 ½ months but nothing was done.  Ultimately the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum claiming replacement of air conditioner and damages for causing harassment to him.
3. The appellant herein i.e. OP before the District Forum contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein The appellant admitted the purchase of air conditioner by respondent and also about the complaints made by the respondent about some fault in the air conditioner. However, it was alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. 
4. After considering the written statement, the District Forum had disposed of the complaint vide impugned order dated 13.1.14. The District Forum noted in the impugned order that since the compressor had been replaced as such grant of compensation of Rs.10,000/- in favour of respondent for harassment would be sufficient. Accordingly the District Forum awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation in favour of respondent.
5. Aggrieved with the above order present appeal is filed.
6. The grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum ought not have granted the compensation without giving opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence by way of affidavits. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to support the alleged stand of the respondent.  In these circumstances respondent was not entitled for any compensation.
7.  Respondent is appearing in person, who has argued that after filing of the complaint, the compressor of air conditioner was replaced. It is submitted that Rs.10,000/- was awarded to him as compensation as he had requested number of times to the appellant for visiting his place to examine the air conditioner as the same was not working properly. It is submitted that air conditioner was purchased in summer season and no one from the appellant was bothering about the complaints of the respondent. The respondent/complainant has also submitted that the appellant  has already paid Rs.10,000/- to him as awarded by the District Forum and the impugned order stands satisfied.
8. We have considered the submissions of the parties.
9. We do not find it appropriate to interfere in the impugned order.  The impugned order has been passed on the basis of admissions made by the appellant in the written statement. The faults in the air conditioner in question have been admitted by the respondent. During the pendency of the complaint the compressor was also changed.  Only meager amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded by the District Forum as the needful was done after much delay. The District Forum had noted in the impugned order about the harassment being caused to the respondent.  The impugned order also stands complied by the appellant as has been submitted by respondent. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
10. The appeal stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
11. File be consigned to record room.

                               

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                          

 

(Salma Noor)

                                                                                          Member