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.5122 dt.14.04.2014 and it was functioned for two and half years and it became idle and then the complainant lodged a complaint vide Complaint No.BS0317004092 dt.25.03.2017 and after receiving the complaint the service manger of OP 1 did not respond the complaint of the complainant and closed the complaint and after three months when the AC was not repaired the complainant lodged another complaint vide Complain No.BS0617000072 dt.01.06.2017 and after receiving the second complaint, the OP 1 sent his local 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.25.03.2017 the technician of the OP 1 visited the premises of the complainant on the same day and checked the AC and found that the compressor is OK in all respect and 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 sensor and 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 01.06.2017 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 25.03.2017 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 OP .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 two and half 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 the service manger of OP 1 who did not respond the complaint of the complainant and closed the complaint and after three months when the AC was not repaired the complainant lodged another complaint on dt.01.06.2017 and after receiving the second 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 17th day March,2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.
Member Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
- Copy of Retail Invoice
- Copy of Warranty Card
By the Opp.Party: Nil
President
