O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased an Onida Air Conditioner (split) from OP-3 on 3.5.2010. It is further alleged in the complaint that the OPs assured the complainant that AC is an imported one and assembled in India. The AC was guaranteed for one year and compressor for 5 years. It is further alleged that the AC was installed at the house of the complainant and from the very beginning the AC was giving troubles, a complaint was made on the customer care and the Service Engineer came and always fixed the problem but the actual problem was never been served as it was the manufacturing problem in the compressor of the AC. Finally the AC stopped working on 20.5.2013 and a complaint was lodged on 28.5.2013 but despite the various complaints and phone calls no response was given by the service centre of OP-1. However, out of sudden one day some engineer of the OP-1 visited the house of complainant to check the AC and after checking he informed that its compressor requires to be replaced as the same is not working. They further informed that for the replacement of the compressor AC is required to be taken to the service centre and the same was taken to the service centre but despite various complaints, request and phone calls no positive reply was received. It is alleged that complainant made a complaint via internet then the complainant was informed that on 18.6.2013, OPs have closed their complaint with the remark of payment issue. Finally complainant agreed to make the payment of Rs.2800/- and he was assured the AC unit shall be installed within two days but no such unit was reinstalled at the residence of complainant. It is alleged that OP-1 & 2 have deliberately sold faulty AC to the complainant and thereafter have not got it repaired despite the unit was under the warranty period. On these facts complainant prays that OPs be directed to refund the complete payment of AC apart from compensation as claimed.
2. Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs and OP-1 has filed its written Statement. In the written statement it has been stated that first complaint was filed on 28.5.2013 after about three years of purchasing the AC. On the complaint the service engineer visited the complainant’s house and checked AC and found problem in compressor. As the compressor was in warranty period so the service engineer had taken the details of the set and informed the complainant that the compressor will be replaced as it is in warranty period. It has been stated that the complainant filed another complaint just day after of the first complaint on 30.5.2013 and the complainant was again informed that the requisition of the new compressor has been made to Head Office in Mumbai as the same was not available in regional office of the OP-1 and it will take some time, complainant agreed upon that. It has been stated that the old compressor was replaced by new one on 19.6.2013 and gas charging was charged from the complainant as the gas charging is not covered under warranty. It has been stated that it is unfortunate that some defects was found in replaced new one compressor by the service engineer on visiting to the complaint on 13/14.7.2013 with new one compressor for replacing it free of cost and without charging the gas charge but the complainant stopped to the service engineer to replacing the compressor and wanted the change of whole new AC unit. It has been stated that since the compressor is only under the warranty and it could be replaced by new one and AC was out of warranty as mentioned in the terms and conditions provided to the complainant at the time of the purchasing of the AC. It has been stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the AC unit. Only compressor was defective, OPs which are willing to replace by new one and ready to replace but if the service engineer will not be permitted to enter in the house of the complainant to check the AC then how the problem will be solved. On these premise, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Both the parties have filed their evidence vide affidavits. We have considered the pleadings of the parties as well as documentary evidence placed on the record; it is not dispute that the AC was purchased by the complainant from the OP. It is also not in dispute that it was giving trouble. However, it is admitted by both the parties that the compressor was defective, although it was found to be so after three years of purchase the AC. Since the compressor of AC was under warrantee for five years, therefore the OPs were ready to change the same and they have made efforts to do so but could not replace it due to the insistence of the complainant to have new AC unit. In the written statement filed by the OPs they are ready and willing to change the compressor with a new one. As the AC was purchased on 3.5.2010 and the first complaint was made on 28.5.2013, therefore, the AC unit was not under warrantee. However, the compressor was under warrantee due to the facts that the warrantee of compressor was for 5 years.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the interest of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to replace a new compressor free of cost in the AC within 30 days from the date of order. Complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment which amount shall also include the cost of litigation. This amount shall be payable within 45 days from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6@% till its realization. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 31st day of December, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
