DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 305
Instituted on: 04.07.2017
Decided on: 17.10.2017
Akshay Mittal son of Shi Vijay Kumar, Shop No.42, 43, New Grain Market, Bhawanigarh cum resident of 1352A, Dashmesh Nagar, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Modern Radios Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. Daikin Airconditioning India Private Limited, SCO 14&15, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009 through its Branch Manager.
3. Daikin Airconditioning India Private Limited, 12th Floor, Building No.9, Tower A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana (India) through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri S.S.Dhindsa, Adv.
For OPs : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Akshay Mittal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 5.7.2016, the complainant approached the Op number 1 and purchased one air conditioner manufactured by Op number 2 for Rs.32,400/- vide bill number 6312 dated 5.7.2016 which was having a warranty of one year. Further case of the complainant is that the air conditioner in question was giving poor cooling from the day one of its purchase, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 and lodged the complaint thereof and thereafter the air conditioner stopped working due to manufacturing defect. The complainant also lodged the complaint with the OPs and the Ops sent the engineer, but he failed to remove the defect. The complaint further lodged the complaints with the OPs on 5.5.2017, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the air conditioner in question with a new one of the same model or to refund its purchase price and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Record shows that the Ops did not appear despite service, as such, they were proceeded exparte.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Simranjit Singh, Ex.C-3 expert report, Ex.C-4 copy of bill and Ex.C-5 copy of product warranty and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. Ex.C-4 is the copy of the invoice showing the purchase of the air conditioner make Daikin 1.5 ton by the complainant from the OP number 1. Ex.C-5 is the copy of warranty card, which clearly shows that it has a comprehensive warranty of 12 months. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the air conditioner in question on 5.7.2016 and the same was got installed from the OP number 1 and thereafter the problem of cooling developed in the air conditioner, but the fact remains that the air conditioner in question developed defects of cooling immediately after its purchase and thereafter the Ops failed to set right the cooling problem in the air conditioner in question. We may mention that the Ops chose to remain exparte and did not appear before this Forum to rebut the contention of the complainant. It is on the record that the air conditioner in question developed defects in the very short span of its purchase and even during the warranty period and the complainant even filed the complaint before this Forum during the warranty period. The complainant has also produced on record the report of Shri Simranjit Singh expert which is supported by his affidavit, Ex.C-2, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the air conditioner in question is suffering from manufacturing defect, but the Ops have produced nothing on record to rebut this expert report as well as affidavit. In the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and of unfair trade practice by supplying the complainant a defective air conditioner. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserves the replacement of the air conditioner in question with a new one.
6. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the air conditioner in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.32,400/- being the cost of the air conditioner. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
October 17, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
