Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/589/2019

Ravinder Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Carrier Midea India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	589 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	03.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	18.03.2020

 

 

 

 

Ravinder Prasad s/o Sh.Chandi Prasad, M/s Aman Gota Kinari & Tailoring Material, Shop No.1916, Main Bazar, Manimajra, Chandigarh   

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  M/s Carrier Midea India Private Limited, 1^st Floor, Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001

2]  M/s Gupta Vision, Shop No.1141/2, Morigate Manimajra, Chandigarh. 160101

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :- Complainant in person.

  Sh.Piyush Khanna, Adv. for OP No.1.

  Sh.Sandeep Sharma, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one Carrier Air Conditioner 24K OCTRA pro 3 Star, manufactured by OP No.1, from OP No.2 on 28.4.2018 for an amount of Rs.47,000/- and the same get installed by Service Department of M/s Carrier Midea India Private Limited at ‘M/s Aman Gota Kinari & Tailoring Material’ of complainant.  It is averred that the said AC stopped functioning soon after its installation in June, 2018.  The matter was reported to OPs and it was set right, however, after few days, the cooling of AC dropped which too was reported to OPs and the representative of OPs told that due to June/July the complainant is feeling less cooling.  It is averred that in August, 2018 the relay of the said AC became defective, which was replaced by the OPs and it was told that due to poor power supply, the said problem occurred.  It is submitted that in January, 2019, the complainant in order to check the performance of the AC, turned it On and found it to be faulty and as such requested OPs to replace the AC with new one, but the request was declined.  The complainant applied for preventive maintenance as advised by Service Team of OPs, but the Service Person did not report any issue to the complainant. It is averred that when in April, 2019, the AC was Turned On, it was noticed that there is frequent Start/Stop in the AC, so the matter was reported to OPs, but still the OPs did not change the AC.  It is also submitted that in June, 2019 the AC stopped functioning, so the complainant again requested the OPs to replace the AC, but the OPs told that the product is now out of warranty. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed reply stating that the complainant has installed the said AC of 2 Ton capacity in a room with approximately 400 sq. feet in size, whereas the AC in question is suitable only for a room size of maximum 200 square feet.  It has also been stated that during various visits, the technician also observed that the door of the shop of complainant is permanently kept open throughout the day, the shop has front and back, the main shop is around 350 sq. feet in size and behind the back door of the main shop, there is an extended portion of the shop for about 80/100 sq. ft. and there is frequent opening of the back door by the employees of the complainant.  It has also been noticed that the AC is installed just above the front door, so there is no air throw at the back portion of the shop; there is heavy foot fall of customers throughout the day and there is frequent voltage fluctuation in the area, which affected the functioning of the AC. It is pleaded that the complainant is required to have total tonnage capacity of 4 Tons i.e. he needs to install 2 ACs each of 2 tons capacity and the AC in question is not sufficient to give adequate cooling for room size of 400 sq. ft.  The pictures of the shop have also been annexed as Ann.R-1/2.  It is averred that the complainant is fully aware about the said facts and in order to hide his own mistake of purchasing an under capacity AC, has filed false complaint.  It has also been averred that after warranty period, when the technician demanded charges from the complainant, he refused to pay anything.  It is denied that the AC in question is defective.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         OP No.2 has filed short reply and while admitting the sale of the AC in question, denied other allegations being related to OP No.1 being manufacturer of AC in question.  It is prayed that the complaint qua OP NO.2 be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant reiterating the assertion as made in complaint and controverting that of OP No.1 made in its reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is a matter of record that the complainant has purchased one Split Carrier Air Conditioner 24 K OCTRA pro 3 Star from OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, which as per the complainant is defective one.  It is so agitated by the complainant that despite of repeated complaints, the Air Conditioner in question is not working properly and is not fulfilling the purpose for which it has been installed alleging that the cooling of the Air Conditioner in question is not effective.

 

7]       On the contrary, it has been so argued on behalf of OP No.1 that as and when any complaint has been registered by the complainant that has duly been attended by Technician and no fault, as alleged, has been noticed at any point of time in the Air Conditioner in question.  It has also been submitted that regular servicing of the Air Conditioner has also been conducted. In addition, the OP No.1 vide reply (which is part of the record) stated certain reasons affecting the cooling of the Air Conditioner (as mentioned in Para No.2 of this order). The reasons mentioned in the reply filed by OP No.1 appears to be reasonable one in view of the record filed with us. 

 

8]       Among other reasons, the Technician of OP No.1 also suggested that the size of the room/area of shop of complainant where Air Conditioner in question has been installed is around 400 sq. ft. and in order to get proper cooling effect, it requires one more Air Conditioner of 2 ton capacity needs to be installed by the complainant, with further suggestion that the AC be installed in the middle of the shop to get maximum cooling.  In response to the complaint of the complainant regarding frequent switching on/off of the Air Conditioner in question, the complainant has rightly been explained about Multi Stage Cleanser feature of the AC in question by OP No.1 that when the AC is switched off with the remote, the AC first uses condensed water to remove the dust from the fins and then it switches to ‘fan-only mode’ to blow away the wet air and this helps to dry the water inside the AC and prevents breeding of bacteria inside the Unit.  It is also contended that the Multi Stage Cleanser is an advanced feature, which prevents formation of fungus, bacteria and foul smell in the indoor unit, but sometime people mistakenly thinks that the AC is defective as this entire process takes around 15 minutes to completely switched off the AC.

 

9]       After having considered all the parameters, facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Air Conditioner in question is not having any manufacturing or inherent defect.  The complainant has also failed to brought forward any expert opinion on that subject revealing that the Air Conditioner in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect.  However, taking a very lenient view and into consideration the goodwill gesture of the OP No.1 that they are ready to repair the AC in question, if it carries any defect, free of cost, we deem it proper to direct the OP No.1 to repair the Air Conditioner in question, by carrying out necessary repair, if required, or replacement of part, free of cost.  The OP No.1 shall also install the AC in question at any other point in the shop of the complainant as he desires, free of cost.  We order accordingly.  The complaint stands partly allowed in above terms.  In view of peculiar facts & circumstances of the present case, there is no order as to costs and compensation. 

   

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

18^th March, 2020                                                            Sd/-                                                                                                   

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER