DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.242/2012

Sh. Dhirender Singh

S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh

R/o F-113, Katwaria Sarai,

New Delhi-110016                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Raj Electronics

          D-9 Mohan Singh Market,

Sector VI R. K. Puram,

New Delhi-110022

2.       Carreer Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd.

          U & Building Plot No.83, Sector-29,

Near Bikaner Sweet, Gurgaon

Haryana

3.       Goel Enterprises

          Authorized Carreer Consumer Care Centre

          517, FI 18, Patparganj, Opp. Patparganj Bus Depot

          Delhi          

            Date of Institution        :     14.05.2012     Date of Order     :     29.09.2018

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Naina Bakshi, Member

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that   the complainant had purchased an (Carrer Durakool) Split A.C. 1.5 ton) from the OP No.1. The A.C. was not cooling properly and he had complained to the Customer Care of the OP-3, the technician of the OP No.3 inspected the A.C. but the defect of the A.C. was not cured. The complainant had complained many times to the OPs and lastly on 25.04.12. The complainant wanted to talk to the senior supervisor Mr. Iqbal but he cut the phone call and the other OPs refused to listen his complaint and stopped attending his phone calls. It is submitted that the A.C. was in guarantee period but the OPs wanted to delay the repair so the guarantee period will expire. The complainant requested that the suitable action may take against the OPs.

OP No.1 & 3 did not file their written statement vide order dated 05.12.2012.

OP No.2 in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant had purchased a Duracool plus 1.5 Split A.C. unit on 21.05.11 for an amount of Rs.34,000/- from OP No.1 whose is not authorized dealer of the OP No.2 and only retailer. It is submitted that the unit was in perfect condition when delivered to the complainant and the complainant was well versed with the warranty terms and conditions which were provided through the warranty card to the complainant. The OPs provides a comprehensive warranty for a period of 1 year on the subject unit manufactured by OP No.2 and warranty for a four additional years on the compressor against the manufacturing defect found in the compressor during the period of additional warranty.  As per the warranty, expendable items like refrigerant, overload, oil strainer and others are excluded from the warranty and it also subject to use as set out in the warranty card and user manual. It is submitted that on 03.04.12, the technician of the OP No.2 visited the complainant’s place for preventive maintenance service of the subject unit and found that there was gas leakage from the suction line of the unit. Accordingly on 05.04.12 the technician of the OP recharged the gas and set right the unit.  At that time it was observed by the technician that the outdoor unit was installed on the ground level of the property, which is on the road side, the complainant was suggested for shifting the unit in order to avoid the physical damage. It was also observed that the unit was not giving the desired result due to the fact that the capacity of the unit is 1.5 ton which is in sufficient for cooling of area of 240 sq. ft. Apart from that the shop of the complainant is opened from one side the complainant was requested to cover the same with a plastic sheet to which the complainant flatly refused and insisted for the replacement of the entire unit.  It is submitted that the complainant failed to file the expert opinion /report to satisfy the contention /allegation made in the complaint.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2 and stated that the A.C. was purchased from OP No.1.  However, it is denied that the OP No.1 is not the authorized dealer. It is denied that the technician of the OP-2 suggested the complainant for shifting the outdoor unit and for covering the opening area of the shop. It is denied that the complainant not followed the instruction. It is submitted that after sometime of the purchase of the A.C., the same was not working properly.  The mechanic of the OP No.2 tried to cure the defect but he could not do so. It is denied that the complainant has failed to file the expert/report to satisfy the allegations/contentions made in the complaint. It is submitted that after many attempts made by the mechanic of the OP No.2 could not cure the defects of the A.C. and hence the OP No.2 was duty to replace the unit.  

Complainant has filed his own affidavit  in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Amrita Bhinder has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP-2.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant  and OP No.2.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP No.2 and have also gone through the file very carefully.

The complainant has filed the delivery challan dated 21.05.11 for an amount of Rs.34,000/-. We mark the same as Annexure-A for the purpose of identification. The OP No.2 filed the warranty terms and conditions as Annexure-2. Annexure-3 to 5 relates to the field failure cum service report dated 05.04.12, 18.04.12 and 12.05.12.

Admittedly the complainant had purchased the A.C. from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2.

The complainant has not informed that still the A.C. is not cooling properly. The complainant has not filed any document to show that there is a manufacturing defect in the A.C. or OP No.2 has refused to rectify the same within the warranty period.

In view of the above, it shows from the record that problems in the A.C. was not rectified despite the same was in warranty period.

In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, we hold the OP No.2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct the OP No.2 to repair the A.C. in question and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.2 shall become liable to refund the amount of A.C. i.e. Rs.34,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 29.09.18.