ORDER
11.10.2023
MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased AC from OP-1 of Haier Model No.HW18CV5CR on 04.05.2018 by paying a sum of Rs. 19,600/-. It is alleged by the complainant that at the time of purchase of AC OP-1 assured one year comprehensive warranty and five year warranty on compressor against the AC in question. It is alleged by the complainant that 87 days of installation AC stopped functioning and as such complainant lodged the complaint with Customer Care of OP-2 vide complaint no. 20180802103840 bearing code no. 2HKY dated 02.08.2018 at 19:00 PM but despite assurance no authorized engineer visited the premises of the complainant to inspect the AC in question as such the complainant sent a legal notice dated 03.08.2018 to both the OPs. On receipt of the notice the authorized engineer of the OP visited the premises and rectify the defect in the AC and further assured that the AC in question is in working position and if there is any defect that the same would be rectified immediately.
It is alleged by the complainant that after the expiry of 20 to 25 days of repairing again AC start performing poorly, again the complainant lodged complaint bearing no. DL20180919106408 dated 19.09.2018 with OP-2 again the promise was made which turn false and no engineer visited to rectify the defect, in a compelling situation complainant again lodged a complaint bearing no. 20180919094 dated 29.09.2018. On 29.09.2018 the authorized engineer of the OP visited to the complainant and tried to remove the defect but unable to do so hence, he put the AC in question on direct mode with the assurance that he will come again with a new remote kit but he never turned up. Again on 02.10.2018 engineer visited the complainant and replaced the remote control system of the AC in question but the AC failed to work and without rectifying the defect the engineer asked the complainant to sign the satisfaction note. After denying for the signature the authorized engineer of the OP left the AC without repairing and thereafter no complaint was ever readdressed by both the OPs. The complainant again sent a legal notice dated 18.02.2018 to both the OPs but all in vain. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP complainant approached this Commission for readressal of his grievance.
Notice of the complaint was sent to both the OPs. Despite service none appeared on behalf of OPs as such there were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on 26.04.2019.
Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments.
We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by complainant and have perused the record.
Complainant has placed on record the original invoice dated 04.05.2018 pertaining to the purchase of AC in question. He has also placed on record the original warranty card. The complainant has placed on record the copy of legal notice sated 03.08.2018 and 18.02.2019 along with the original postal receipts in support of his contention.
Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the AC in question on 04.05.2018. The first complaint was registered by complainant on 02.08.2018 within 87 days of the installation of AC in question. On the repeated follow up of the complainant the authorized engineer of OP-2 rectify the defects in the AC but after 25 days of the repairing again the AC starts malfunctioning as such the complainant was compelled to lodge the another complaint dated 29.09.2018. After receipt of the complaint on 02.10.2018 the engineer of OP-2 replaced the remote control systems of the AC but thereafter also the AC did not work and the engineer left the premises without rectifying the defects. Thereafter, the complainant called the local engineer who informed complainant that the AC in question is having a manufacturing defect and not repairable one. The complainant prayed for the refund of the cost of the AC in question besides other reliefs.
Admittedly, the AC in question is with the complainant. The complainant had repeatedly averred in his complaint that the AC is having the manufacturing defect he also stated in his complaint that he got the AC in question inspected from the local engineer who informed that the AC is non repairable one, but failed to place on record any inspection report by the local engineer to this effect. Besides, mentioning complaints nos. and dates no specific averments regarding the category of defects mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. Since, the OP had not contested the complaint, hence, we have no other option but to rely upon the facts mentioned in the complaint.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we hold OP-2 guilty of deficiency in service for not providing the prompt redressal to the grievance of the complainant despite the fact that the AC in question is covered under one year comprehensive guarantee and five year warranty on compressor. We therefore, is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for pain and mental agony suffered by him due to the deficiency in service of OP-2.
We therefore, direct OP-2 company to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 25,000/- for pain and mental agony as well as the litigation cost suffered by him.
The OP-2 is directed to comply the order within 30 days of the receipt of the order failing which OP-2 will be liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of receipt of order till realization. File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.
Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Pronounced on 11.10.2023
Sanjay Kumar Nipur Chandna Rajesh
President Member Member
