Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/410

Harinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Hrpreet Singh Adv.

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:410 dated 28.08.2019                                                Date of decision: 13.09.2022.

Harinder Pal Singh s/o. Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh r/o H. No.235-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant

 

1.M/s Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd., Regd Office:- 210, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-3, Delhi-110020.

Second Address:- 12^th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Dee Kay Electronics, Video Market, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner.                                                                                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties

 

    Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Exparte

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Daikin Split A.C 2 ton from OP2 vide bill No.DKGG-1090 dated 23.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.46,500/-. The AC was manufactured by OP1. From March-April 2019 onwards, the AC was giving less cooling. The complainant lodged the number of complaints with the customer care of OP1 and its service centre persons visited and checked the AC but failed to rectify the problem. In fact, the AC suffered from some manufacturing defect and that is why, it could not be repaired by the service persons of OP1. A legal notice dated 22.07.2019 was served upon the OPs calling upon them to replace the defective Ac with a new one but to no avail. Hence the present complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to take back the defective AC and to supply a new one of the same model or in the alternative the OPs be made to refund the cost of the AC of Rs.46,500/- along with interest @12% per annum and further OPs be made to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

2.                Upon notice, earlier OPs did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.11.2019. Subsequently, OP1 appeared through counsel Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate and filed an application for setting side exparte order dated 01.11.2019 which was allowed vide order dated 10.05.2022. However, despite that OP1 has not placed on record any evidence or documents in its defence of the case.

3.                On the contrary, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA and affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Anil Sharma along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

5.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that he purchased one Daikin split 2 ton air conditioner from OP1 on 23.07.2018 which was not functioning properly and from March-April 2019 onwards, the air conditioner has not been giving the right cooling effect expected of an air conditioner of a branded quality. It has also been claimed that as a matter of fact, the air conditioner suffered from some manufacturing defect due to which it was not giving the desired results. To strengthen his case, the complainant has submitted affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Anil Sharma who is a diploma holder in refrigeration and air conditioning. In his affidavit Ex. CB, Sh. Anil Sharma has stated that he is engaged in the business of all types of A.Cs. He further stated that he inspected the air conditioner in question on 22.07.2019 and tested the same with the help of clamp meter, charging line and gauge and found that its compressor suffered from a manufacturing defect due to which gas was leaking from it and because of this problem, the AC was not giving cooling. The statement of expert witness Anil Sharma has not been controverted as no evidence has been led by OP1 to controvert the same. From the statement of the expert witness, who has also produced on record his diploma certificates Ex. C7 and Ex. C7, it can be safely held that there is a defect in the compressor of the air conditioner due to which the air conditioner is not giving effect and cooling.

6.                During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out by the counsel for OP1 that by the time the issue of defect was raised by the complainant, the warranty period of one year had already expired and, therefore, OP1 cannot be held liable for any defect which came into being after the warranty period had expired. The above argument raised by the counsel for OP1 does not seem to be tenable. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the air conditioner was purchased by the complainant on 23.07.2018 and it became defective and stopped cooling in March-April 2019 i.e. within a period of less than one year. Legal notice Ex. C3 was also issued to OP1 on 22.07.2019. Moreover, if the complainant has not placed on record any warranty card, OP1 has also not placed on record any document. Besides, it is a matter of common knowledge that all the reputed air conditioner manufacturing companies give warranty qua the compressor ranging from 5 to 10 years even if the warrantee qua the other parts is for merely one or two years. Since in this case the compressor itself has been found to be defective, it has to be held that it is a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and in our considered view, it would be just and proper, if the OPs are directed to replace the compressor of the air conditioner free of costs and insure proper functioning of the air conditioner or in the alternative they would replace the air conditioner of the same brand and capacity along with composite cost of Rs.5,000/-.  

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to replace the compressor of the air conditioner free of costs and insure proper functioning of the air conditioner within a period of one month from today or in the alternative they would replace the air conditioner of the same brand and capacity. Further, OPs jointly and severally shall pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.       

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Harinder Pal Singh Vs Daikin Air Conditioner               CC/19/410

 

Present:       Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate for OP1.

                   OP2 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to replace the compressor of the air conditioner free of costs and insure proper functioning of the air conditioner within a period of one month from today or in the alternative they would replace the air conditioner of the same brand and capacity. Further, OPs jointly and severally shall pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.       

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.