Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 300.
Instituted on : 20.6.2019.
Decided on : 04.12.2019.
Rajender Nandal son of Shri Ramphal, resident of village Bohar, Near Nandal Bhawan, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Tammana Cooling Solutions Opp. Old Gymkhana Club HUDA Complex Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. 12th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-A DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III Gurgaon through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Suresh Nandal, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri O.P. Mittal, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased one Daikin Air Conditioner, vide invoice no.378 dated 09.07.2018 from the respondent no.1 for Rs.34,500/- with five years warranty. It is further averment that on 26.4.2019, the above mentioned A.C. has stopped working and on the same day complainant make phone call on customer care. Thereafter, on dated 2.5.2019, 3.5.2019, 4.5.2019 and 7.5.2019, the complainant again informed on customer care but no one come to repair the A.C. It is further averred that on 10.5.2019, the Engineer of the company came to repair the A.C., and replaced the PCB and remote, but even after that A.C. has not been working. The complainant requested to respondents various time to repair the fault of his A.C. but his A.C. has not been repaired upto till date. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 29.5.2019 to the respondents through his counsel. On 1.6.2019, the Engineer of company visited at the house of complainant and changed the A.C. floor of air conditioner, but even after that the air conditioner is not working. Complainant requested the opposite parties many times to remove the defects of A.C. or to rehv place the same with new one but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.34,500/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of actual realization and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-on account of harassment as well as Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that at the time of installation and afterwards, the A.C. machine was working properly to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant. Complainant registered his first service request in the month of March, 2019. On 26.4.2019, the complainant registered another service call/complainant with the respondent no.2. The technician attended the call and during the scrutiny, issue in PCB of outdoor unit was observed. However, as a goodwill gesture, the answering respondent no.1 offered free of cost replacement of PCB unit and thus, the same was replaced on 26.4.2019. After replacing the same, the complainant was satisfied. Complainant again on 2.5.2019 and 7.5.2019, registered service call/complaints with respondent no.2 but the complainant without assigning or providing any reason refused entry to the technicians on both the dates. On 29.5.2019, complainant registered a service call/complaint with the respondent no.2, and authorized service representative inspected the air conditioner and reported that there was no issue in the operation of machine and the same was working properly within the parameters. However, despite the services being provided to the satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant perused legal route and has filed the present complaint before Ld. Forum without any justifiable cause. There is no manufacturing defect in the A.C. or deficiency in service on the part of answering respondents. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party No.1 failed to appear before the Forum, despite service. Hence, opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.08.2019 of this Forum.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on 1.10.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R-1 and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the A.C. in question on dated 09.07.2018 from the respondent no.1 and during the warranty period, the above mentioned A.C. has stopped working on 26.4.2019 and complainant made a complaint with the opposite parties. Thereafter, complainant again made complaints on dated 2.5.2019, 3.5.2019, 4.5.2019 and 7.5.2019. On 10.5.2019, the Engineer of the company replaced the PCB and remote, but even after that A.C. did not work. On 1.6.2019, the Engineer of company visited at the house of complainant and changed the A.C. floor of air conditioner, but even after that the air conditioner is not working. To prove this fact complainant has placed on record copy of emails Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and copy of legal notice Ex.C7 and copy of email Ex.C8. Hence from the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that there were repeated complaints in the A.C. in question, which could not be resolved by the opposite parties despite their repeated repairs. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of A.C. in question.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No. 2 to refund the price of A.C in question i.e. Rs. 34500/-(Rupees thirty four thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.06.2019 till its realisation and shall also to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the A.C. in question to the opposite party No.2 at the time of receiving the amount.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.12.2019.
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
