Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Sri S.K.Sahu & Associate Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

For the O.P 1 & 2: Sri Hari Ram Kedia, Advocate, Cuttack.

For the OP No.3: Exparte

                   JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Whirlpool 1.5 Ton AC   from O.P. No.3 with a  consideration of Rs.32,000/- with five years warranty  vide  Invoice No.5123 dt.14.04.2014  and it was functioned for three years and it became idle and then the complainant lodged a complaint vide Complaint No.BS0157002629dt.13.05.2017 and after receiving the  complaint, the OP 1 sent his service  technician and   it was found that the compressor of the Split Ac has been damaged. As per the warranty the Whirlpool India Ltd.  has obligation  under the warranty  to repair  or replace the  compressor   but the Op remained silent  without changing the compressor which covers the warranty for four years. The Ops rejected the genuine complaint of the complainant  for which the complainant sustained mental agony and harassment. Hence he  prayed to direct the  Ops to  replace the defective compressor and provide a new one free of cost  with extended warranty and direct the Ops to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and any another reliefs as the forum deem fit and proper.  Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed,  the O.P 1 & 2 appeared through  Sri Hari Ram Kedia, Advocate, Cuttack and filed written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP No.3 neither appeared nor filed written version , as such the OP 3 was set exparte. It is submitted by the Op 1 & 2  as per the admitted fact of the complainant the said AC provided uninterrupted  and continuous good cooling for two and half years  as per his satisfaction and the complainant has not uttered a single work regarding the problem in the AC.  The AC becomes idle if  it is not backed up by a 4 KW  good quality stabilizer   and sudden idleness of the AC after working  perfectly  for continuously for two and half years indicates that the stabilizer installed has developed defects .  As per the complaint dt.13.05.2017 the technician of the OP 1 visited the premises of the complainant   and checked the AC and found that the compressor  is OK in all respect .The technician found heavy deposit of dust inside the AC and needed water servicing which the complainant requested the technician to do so and the technician also found defect in the  stabilizer which he repaired. The technician of the  OP 1  made the AC perfect  up to the full satisfaction of the complainant and after servicing  and repair the AC was giving sufficient cooling. After servicing,  the technician  requested the complainant to pay the charges  for water servicing but the complainant denied to pay immediately and promised to pay the amount after the replacement of a new compressor. The technician denied saying that the replacement as not within his reach and the company can replace the compressor. Again on 08.08.2017 the  complainant again lodged complaint and in response  the OP 1 deputed  another technician on the same day  but the complainant did not allow the technician to enter his premises and told that  he would allow the technician  on the condition of replacement of the compressor and threatened to file consumer case  if the company does not replace the compressor. The AC of the complainant is working perfectly since 13.05.2017 but the complainant is dissatisfied due to non replacement of the compressor free of cost. The complainant has filed this complaint  with ill motive and to harass the Opp.Party. Thus this complaint petition is not maintainable and hence prayed to order the complainant to allow the technician of the Ops to check the AC and  order to replace the compressor of the Ac  free of cost if it is found defective on checking.                                                                                                                          

                                                              F I N D I N G

                        After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the complainant lodged complain before the OP 1 for repair of his AC but  the OP 1 -   failed to rectify the defects. The complainant stated that after three years of its purchase the AC gave troubles and it did not give proper cooling  and the complainant intimated the facts to the OP 1 and after receiving the complaint, the OP 1 sent his local service  technician.  It was found that the compressor of the Split Act has been damaged and as per the warranty the Whirlpool India Ltd.  has obligation  under the warranty  to repair  or replace the  compressor   but the Op remained silent  without changing the compressor which covers the warranty for four years but the Ops rejected the genuine complaint of the complainant  for which the complainant sustained mental agony .So, he approached the forum for his grievance. It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the AC machine  or replace it whenever it gave troubles. In the present complaint, the Ops though he  claimed that he repaired the AC machine but the defects  could not be rectified. The complainant purchased the AC for his comfort, as the AC gave troubles within its warranty period, the complainant’s wish of having the AC is defeated as the OPs did not rectify the defects completely which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The OP 1 manufacturer of the AC is liable to repair and  replace the defective parts if necessary but the Ops have not done.  Moreover, the complainant approached the OP 1 within the warranty period .

                        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant approached the OPs within the warranty period and the OPs failed to rectify the  defects, as such he approached the forum. It is the version of the Ops that  he  tried to rectify  the defects   but the complainant did not allow the technician of the OP 1 to check the AC and claims replacement of compressor. It is reasonably believed that  the complainant after two and half years made complaint before the OP 1 only because the AC is  defective and he claims replacement of compressor as it is not  working properly. We do not believe the mere pleadings of the Ops. The Ops also stated in his written version and prayed to order the complainant to allow the technician of the OP to check the AC and replace the compressor if it is defective. So, in  view of the above findings and admission of the Ops  we  direct the OPs to change the compressor of the AC with a new one  as the defective arose within the warranty period. Hence, in the result, this complaint is allowed in part with the following directions.

                   ORDER

                        The Ops are directed to replace the defective compressor  of the AC with a new one with fresh warranty within one month from the date of receipt of this order and failing  to comply the order within the stipulated period of 30 days the Ops are liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. There shall be no order as to costs and compensation. Parties to bear their own.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 17^th day  March,2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                 Member                                         Member                                    President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of  Retail Invoice
2. Copy of Warranty Card

By the Opp.Party: Nil

                                                                                                          President