Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 281.
Instituted on : 11.06.2019
Decided on : 19.09.2022.
Satya Narain Sharma, aged 73 years s/o Mukandi Lal R/o H.No.1325-B, Hafed Road, Premnagar Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Sargam Electronics, Raj Complex adjoining Tata Motors showroom Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001, through its owner/proprietor/manager /incharge.
- Daikin Corporate Office: Daikin Aircondioning India Pvt. Ltd. 210, Okhla Phase 3rd Okhla Phase III Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
-
Daikin Aircondioning India Pvt. Ltd.(HO) 12TH Floor, Building-9, Tower-A, DLF City, Phase-3, Gurugram-122010.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Ms.Rinky, Legal aid counsel for complainant.
Sh.Bhupesh AR on behalf of opposite party No.1.
Sh.OP Mittal Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased an A.C. from the opposite party no.1 on dated 26.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.36500/-. On 04.04.2019, the A.C. was installed at the house of complainant by the two persons/technicians of opposite party no.1 but the fastener was not installed. On 06.04.2019 one person from Service Centre came and charged Rs.1500/- and installed the fastener. On 21.04.2019 A.C. was started after electricity fitting but it did not give any cooling. On 25.04.2019 complainant contacted with Jitender Salesman and he advised the complainant to call at Delhi. Complainant made a complaint and called to one Ved Parkash and he given the complaint no.20630131 and asked the complainant to call at mobile no.8000000481. Complainant contacted at the alleged number and he was given complaint no.20703744 and told that their engineer will come within 24 hours but no one came to attend the complaint of the complainant. Thereafter on 10.05.2019, complainant called a private mechanic and got repaired the A.C. after making payment of Rs.3800/-. The opposite parties neither given any receipt of installation of A.C, nor attended the complaints of complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of A.C.Rs.36500/- alongwith expenses incurred by the complainant on account of installation charges, repair charges (Rs.300/-+Rs.1500/-+Rs.3800/-) as well as compensation to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant had purchased one A.C. manufactured by DAIKIN on 26.01.2019 from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of rs.34000/-. Complainant was given sealed pack and new A.C. by the opposite party No.1 and he was fully satisfied at the time of purchase. The visiting technicians were the authorized persons of Daikin Company i.e. opposite party No.2 and these technicians having nothing to do with the opposite party No.1. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer and principle service provider is the right and appropriate party to resolve the genuine complaint of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has no knowledge about the discussion held between the respective complainant and authorized person of opposite party No.2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that AC in question has no manufacturing defect or any deficiency in service from the side of respondent, still complainant has prayed for compensation without explaining any incident of mental agony or financial loss. However, the fact remains that there was no issue in the said A.C. and the technicians of the respondent as a gesture of goodwill refilled the gas but the respondent was not ready in any condition to pay the installation charges of Rs.1500/- which was conducted on the said A.C. unit. The technicians visited the premises of the complainant, but the complainant did not sign on any of the customer service reports. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, document Ex.C1 and closed his evidence on dated 15.04.2022. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 and closed his evidence on 11.07.2022.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by opposite party No.1 as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the receipt Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the A.C. in question with stabilizer for Rs.36500/- from the opposite party No.1. The grievance of the complainant is that A.C. in question was not giving cooling so he complained the same to the opposite parties vide complaint no.20630131 and no.20703744 but opposite parties failed to attend the complaints of the complainant so he called a private mechanic and got repaired the A.C. in question after making the payment of Rs.3800/- for the same. To prove the same complainant has placed on record an affidavit Ex.CW2/A of the mechanic. On the other hand, no specific denial has been made by the opposite parties about making of complaints by the complainant. No document has been placed on record by the opposite parties to prove the fact that the complaints made by the complainant have been resolved by them. Hence it proved that the opposite parties have not attended the complaints of the complainant, due to which he had to got repaired the A.C. from the outside by making the payment, whereas the A.C. in question was within warranty period. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. However, complainant has not placed on record any bill of Rs.1500/- for installation charges to prove the loss. Hence complainant is only entitled for compensation on account of deficiency in service from the respondents.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.3800/-(Rupees three thousand and eight hundred only) and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the alleged amount of Rs.3800/-(Rupees three thousand and eight hundred only) from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
7. 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:
19.09.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
