Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum dated 22-11-2017, passed in CC/224/2017, whereof the complaint case has been allowed, this Appeal is moved by M/s Carrier Midea (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the AC machine purchased by the Complainant started malfunctioning from the very first day of its installation.  As the complaint lodged in this regard was not duly addressed by the OPs, the Complainant, by sending an email on 04-05-2016 asked for replacement of the same.  Since then, the Complainant regularly visited the office of the OP No. 1, but in vain.  In such circumstances, he filed the complaint case.

By filing a WV, the OP No. 2 submitted that after installation of the AC machine, it was found that the same was working fine.  Despite this, the Complainant sent an email asking for replacement of the said AC machine.  Although he told him that everything was in order, the Complainant was immune to any reasoning and kept on harping on the same string of replacing the AC machine tirelessly.  On the basis of complaint lodged by the Complainant, a technician was deputed on 25-04-2016, who did not notice any abnormality with the subject machine.  Still, as the Complainant complained of less cooling, the technician topped up the gas of the said AC machine to satisfy the Complainant.  Despite this, the Complainant was not at all happy and insisted on replacing the subject AC machine.  After receipt of letter dated 04-05-2016, its representative assured the Complainant about proper functioning of the AC machine.  Thereafter, the Complainant did not lodge any complaint.  While doing preventive maintenance on 28-01-2017, the technician found no abnormality with the subject machine and the concerned service report was duly signed by the Complainant without any protest.  It is claimed by the OP No. 2 that after 04-05-2016, the Complainant made no complaint for long which goes to show that there was no problem with the machine. 

Decision with reasons

I have heard both sides and gone through the material on record.

It is stated by the Respondent No. 1 in his petition of complaint that ever since complaint was lodged on 24-04-2016, apart from sending an email on the very next day, the Appellant never made contact with him to resolve the issue.  In struck contrast, in his reply against the questionnaire of the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 confirmed that the representative of the Appellant did visit his house once or twice.

It also sounds curious that after lodging formal complaint with the Appellant lastly on 04-05-2016, not a single official complaint was made either to the Appellant or the Respondent No. 2 till the date of filing of the complaint case on 13-04-2017.

It is though claimed by the Respondent No. 1 that he followed up the matter with the Respondent No. 2 regularly, it was but natural that as a literate person he was well aware of the fact that after-sales-service is provided by the authorized service centre of the manufacturer and not the dealer.

I also find it quite baffling that although the Respondent No. 1 was allegedly not satisfied with the performance (cooling effect) of the AC machine,  he put his signature on the service report without making any adverse comment thereon.  In this regard, it may not be out of the place to mention here that being dissatisfied with the performance of the AC machine, the Respondent No. 1 flatly refused to put his signature on the service report on 25-04-2016. 

Above all, it is the settled position of law that the onus of proving manufacturing defect of a product primarily rests with the Complainant.  For the reason best known to him, the Respondent No. 1 did not make any such endeavour to drive home his point by arranging inspection of the AC machine through an independent expert.

For all these reasons, I am not inclined to uphold the decision of the Forum below and deem it appropriate to remand the case for adjudication of the matter afresh after obtaining expert opinion in the matter.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 28-01-2019 for fresh adjudication of the matter as charted out hereinabove.