BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 90 of 2015
Date of Institution : 4.5.2015
Date of Decision : 10.12.2015
Hanumant Singh Raghav, aged about 42 years s/o Sh.Basant Singh Raghav, r/o 101, D-Block, Sirsa, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1.M/s Ram Enterprises, Takhatmal Road, Kalanwali, Distt.Sirsa (Hry.).
2. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd., F-25/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110020.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte vide order dt. 15.10.2015.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Air conditioner with capacity of 1.5 tons make Daikin, Model Split bearing no. RC50PRV160037877 and FTC50PRVI60001703 from Op no.1 for Rs.34500 + Rs.5000/- for stabilizer. The said air conditioner installed by the employee of Op no.1 and charged Rs.2000/- for installation charges and Rs.5000/- on account of copper pipe and electric wire at complainant’s permanent resident at village Kamrani tehsil and distt.Hanumangarh. But, after installation, said Air Conditioner started creating cooling problems and in this regard, the complainant contacted the Op no.1 on phone no. 094663-77366 and 093562-83426, so many times but no avail. After that complainant lodged his complaint no. JAI 140617808 to Op no.2 on their Toll free no. 1800-22-9300 but no heed was paid. Thereafter, the complainant re-installed the said Air Conditioner from the recommended auhorized centre M/s RAC World, Hanumangarh Junction where a sum of Rs.4392/- were charged from him against proper bill no.73 dt. 26.8.2014, but despite reinstallation of Air Conditioner, it did not work properly. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Notice was sent to opposite parties through registered post, but none appeared on behalf of them, therefore, the opposite parties were duly proceeded exparte vide order dated 15.10.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1/A-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-purchase receipt and Ex.C3 to Ex.C5-repair charges receipts.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
6. It is apparent from the document Ex.C2, complainant purchased air conditioner with capacity of 1.5 tons make Daikin, Model Split bearing no. RC50PRV160037877 and FTC50PRVI60001703 from Op no.1 for Rs.34500 + Rs.5000/- for stabilizer. The said air conditioner installed by the employee of Op no.1 and charged Rs.2000/- for installation charges and Rs.5000/- on account of copper pipe and electric wire at complainant’s permanent resident at village Kamrani tehsil and distt.Hanumangarh. But if we glance on the document Ex.C2 cash memo of Rs.34500/- on the file except this document there is no other cash memo. At the time of purchase, the Op no.1 assured the complainant warranty of one year for all the parts and additional warranty of 48 months for compressor, which is mentioned in Ex.C6. Air conditioner had started problem from the very beginning of its purchase. Complainant contacted to op no.1 on their phone no. 094663-77366 and 093562-83426, so many times but no avail. After that complainant lodged his complaint no. JAI 140617808 to Op no.2 on their Toll free no. 1800-22-9300 but no heed was paid. Complainant sent the legal notice to both the Ops on dated 8.8.2014 but no reply was filed by the Ops.
7. As per direction of the Op no.2, complainant contacted to their service centre M/s RAC World, Hanumangarh. They repaired the AC of the complainant and charged Rs.4392/- Ex.C5, even the AC was in the warranty period. After some time, this problem again created and the same was not rectified. After that, complainant contacted to Amit Electrical & Security System, Sirsa for the rectification of above mentioned fault. On dt. 28.6.2014 Ex.C3 Amit Mechanic filled the gas in the AC. On the next visit on 13.7.2014 Ex.C4, there was gas leakage problem in the AC, which is manufacturing problem and the same cannot be removed. The opinion of the independent mechanic is due weight-age.
8. On notice through registered post, opposite parties failed to appear before the Forum and thus, they were proceeded exparte on 15.10.2015. As such, no version on behalf of the Ops has been filed in this case. In these circumstances, it can be said that Opposite parties have nothing to deny the claim of the complainant. We have no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the complainant. In our view, Ops have adopted unfair trade practice to sale the AC to the innocent consumers. They adopted unfair trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, and falsely represents that the article is of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade composition, style, whereas the truth is otherwise as happened with the complainant in this case. Accordingly, we held the Ops guilty under Sections 2 (f), 2 (g) and 2(r) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date for adopting unfair trade practice for sale of the AC.
9. It is further stated that complainant firstly approached and thereafter lodged so many complaints to Ops on their toll free number for redressal of his grievance, but of no avail. All the Ops did not pay any heed to his grievance. It is apparent from the complaint that complainant moved from piller to the post and was disappointed on every step and ultimately, he had approached this Forum for legal redressal of his grievance. It will be great injustice to the complainant if he fail to get justice, before this Forum.
10. As discussed above, it is proved that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops. The service center and company are liable for the harassment of the complainant with their poor service and careless behavior. We accept the complaint with the cost of Rs.2000/- and ops are hereby directed for replacement of the air conditioner with new A.C. of same quality within two months, in the alternate to refund the price of AC i.e. Rs. 34,500/-. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for compliance of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to initiate the proceedings under Section 25&27 of CP Act against the Ops. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:10.12.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Hanumant Singh Vs. M/s Ram Elect.
Present: Sh.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte vide order dt. 15.10.2015.
Arguments heard. Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:10.12.2015. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
