Haryana

StateCommission

A/1393/2017

DAIKIN AIR CONDITIONING - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KRISHANVEER MAINA TRUST AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

RAMNIK GUPTA

25 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:17.11.2017                      

    Date of final hearing:25.04.2024

        Date of pronouncement:29.04.2024

                                                                    

FIRST APPEAL No.1393 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:                                      

 

Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Representative, 12^th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

…Appellant

 

Through counsel Mr.Ramnik Gupta, Advocate

 

 

Versus

 

 

1.      M/s Krishanveer Maine Trust through Director Shri Karamveer Maina 553/32, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, Haryana.

…Respondent No.1

 

Through counsel Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate

 

2.      Atmos Aircon through Managing Director/Principal Officer, Plot No.70, Sector-32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana.

3.      Future Service (Opposite Jeet Studio) through its Service Manager, Durga Colony, Rohtak, Haryana.

 

…Respondents No.2 &3 already ex-parte.

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Sandeep Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Respondents No.2 & 3 already ex-parte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                   Delay of 23 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for conodonation of delay.

2.               Present appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 15.09.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.551 of 2017, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (now learned ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (‘respondent No.1 herein’) was allowed and the present opposite party (‘OP’)-present appellant was directed as under:-

“.…As such it is directed that complainant shall hand over the A.C in question to the opposite party No.2 and in turn opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of A.Cs after deduction of 10% depreciation i.e. Rs.18,90,577/- (Rs. Eighteen lacs ninety thousand five hundred seventy seven only) to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.”

 

3.                Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that on 03.12.2014, the complainant had purchased two air conditioners of Daikin for a sum of Rs.19,09,673/- vide invoice No.AA/PI/KVM/003 dated 03.12.2014 and the same were fully under guarantee for all types and the same were installed in G.D. Goenka International School, Rohtak. It was alleged that the said ACs were found defective from the very beginning as the same were not functioning properly. It was further alleged that the complainant informed the OPs about defects with the request to remove the fault on many occasions, but all in vain. Thereafter, the OP flatly refused to bring those air conditioners in working order or to change the same with new one as well as to return its price. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 failed to appear before learned District Commission despite service and were proceeded against ex-parte. On the other hand, OP No.2 had appeared before learned District Commission and filed its written version by submitting therein that the alleged ACs were installed for the purpose of cooling of the school building i.e. for commercial purpose and thus the complainant do not fall within the category of consumer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground. It was submitted that the technicians of OP No.1 visited the school premises and also provided the complainant with the estimate for repair and removal of defects but the complainant got furious and wanted OP to carry out the repairs free of costs. It was further submitted that the OP No.1 rightfully refused the same. Moreover, OP always provided services to the satisfaction of complainant but the units were defective due to improper maintenance as well as negligence and faulty methods employed by the complainant which led to the fault in the said unit and replacement could not be done. Further, it was submitted that complainant was not entitled for any relief and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 2^nd (Supra).

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, OP-appellant (M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd.) has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 7.                  Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.1. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                  It is an admitted fact that the complainant-present respondent No.1 had purchased two ACs from the present appellant-OP No.2 on 03.12.2014 by paying an amount of Rs.19,09,673/-. It is also an admitted fact that in July, 2015 some defects appeared in the said ACs i.e. within the warranty period and respondent No.1 requested the appellant to repair the said ACs upon which the appellant had sent an estimate for compressor replacement. Since, the defects in the ACs appeared during the warranty period and request for repairs were also made within the period of warranty and moreover, the engineer of OP took some parts of ACs for repairing in September, 2014 and brought back the same in June, 2015, so the contention of learned counsel for appellant regarding expiring of the warranty period is not tenable.

9.                  On the other hand, as per the appellant the ACs were being used for commercial purpose and the defects, if any, were due to poor maintenance of alleged ACs by the respondent No.1 (complainant). In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that as per respondent No.1 it is admitted that the ACs were installed in the school premises and submitted that the schools are providing services to the society on ‘no profit and no loss’ basis. Moreover, it is settled law by Hon’ble National Commission in case cited in 2015 (1) CPJ 212 tilted as “Delhi Public School Vs. UHBVNL” wherein it has been held that:-

“Electricity connection has been taken only for the purpose of electrification of the school premises and for other facility to the students- In such circumstances, merely because it is non domestic connection, it cannot be said that electricity connection falls with purview of connection for commercial purpose-complaint was maintainable for Consumer Fora”.

 

10.              As such, deficiency in service on the part of present appellant-OP No.2 stands proved. Learned District Commission rightly observed that present appellant-OP was deficient while rendering its services to the complainant-respondent No.1. Impugned order dated 15.09.2017, passed by learned District Commission, Rohtak is well reasoned, based on facts, as per law and there is no need to interfere with it.  Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed while upholding the order passed by the learned District Commission.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and due verification, as per rules.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

13.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 29^th April, 2024

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III