Date : 05.09.2017

ORDER

Sh. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

On 19/08/2015 the Complainant had purchased a split AC make Hitachi from OP -1 for a sum of Rs. 39,500/-.  The AC was warranted for a period of 1 year.  It is alleged by the complainant that the AC did not function properly from the very beginning and produced loud sound, emitted smoke and did not give proper cooling.  Besides it did not work properly and fan used to start after a delay.  The complainant had made several complaints to the OPs but to no effect.  It is alleged by the complainant that the AC had infact stopped functioning and the service engineer of the OP who had attended upon the AC stated that the AC had some manufacturing defect which is beyond repairs.  The complainant requested OPs to replace the AC but to no effect hence the complaint.

OP 1 is the dealer from whom the AC was purchased whereas OP 2 is its manufacturer.  OP 1 has contested the complaint but OP 2 has chosen not to contest the same and was proceed with ex-parte.

In its written statement OP 1 had denied its liability qua the complainant and stated that since he is a dealer of the product there is no liability against him in case of any defect in the product. 

The complainant has filed on record its affidavit dated 18/10/2017 wherein he has supported the contents of the complaint which remain unrebutted.    He has placed on record copies of the complaints made to the customer care service of the OP 2 starting from 04/08/2015. We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. The copy of the complaint made to OP 2 by the Complainant shows that the AC was not functioning properly from the very beginning.  It could not be repaired despite being repeatedly attended to by the service engineer of OP 2.  The complainant also contended that the service engineer of OP 2 told that there is manufacturing defect in the A/C and requires replacement.  As nobody entered appearance on behalf of OP 2 there is nothing on record to rebut the allegations of the complainant and we have no other option but to believe the version of Complainant.   We are convinced that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP 2.  OP 2 is directed as under:  -

(1)     To replace the A/C to the complainant. 

(2)     To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation which includes the cost of litigation.

 (3)    Complainant is directed to return the A/C in dispute to OP 2 who shall take it back from the place of the complainant after the compliance of the above mentioned order.

The OP 2 shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which an interest @ 10% shall be payable on the entire awarded amount.

Copy of this order be made available to the parties as per law.  File be consigned to record room. 

Announced on this           day of  September  2017.