DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 343/2019

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency in service by OP1 in selling a defective AC, as manufactured by OP2. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one Split AC 1.5 Ton from OP1 for an amount of Rs.31,000/- and also paid Rs.4079/- for installing the same and also on the advise of OP1 he purchased extended warranty of five years from OP’s and paid Rs.5034/- to them and a certificate of extended warranty was also issued by OP.  After the installation of the AC it had some cooling problem which was informed to the OP and thereafter service engineer visited the site and told that the issue w.r.t. gas leakage, which was sorted out but in fact this problem persisted and continued even in June, 2018 and again the gas was filled by the OP with the assurance that it will not create problem again.  However, on 15.03.2019 i.e. when the summer season started the AC had again cooling problem whereafter he informed both the OPs and even contacted the service centre but the AC was not repaired.  Thereafter complainant sent various reminders and made telephonic calls but this problem persisted and aggrieved from the conduct of the OPs complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs but of no avail as such he has filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to refund an amount of Rs.40813/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-, and Litigation cost of Rs.8000/-. 
3. Both the OPs were served and received the copy of the complaint i.e. OP1 received it on 17.02.2022 and OP2 received the copy of paper book on 03.03.2022. 
4. OP2 did not appear and was proceeded Ex-parte and OP1 meanwhile filed written statement on 24.02.2022 i.e. within limitation. 
5. It is also a matter of record that complainant thereafter filed evidence but OP1 did not file evidence when the opportunity was given to it therefore OP1 was also proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2023. 
6. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
7. The Complaint of the complainant in nutshell is that he purchased a AC from the OP1 which was having certain cooling problem and OP1 during the warranty period has resolved the issue by stating that it was a gas leakage problem but despite that non-cooling problem subsisted and when complaint was made in March, 2019 nobody redressed the complaint which compelled him to file the present complaint. 
8. While perusing the record there is a job sheet dated 15.04.2019 which shows that gas leakage issue was resolved and gas was completely filled up i.e. top up.  The complaint was made in March 2019, and the cause of action is that the complaint was not redressed as stated in the pleadings, whereas documents show that the OP has redressed the complaint on 15.04.2019 by toping up the gas and has resolved the gas filling issue.  The net result of this is that the problem has been resolved.  The pleadings may tell different story but the document i.e. Annexure –C as filed by the complainant himself shows that there is was no complaint in the product after 15.04.2019 and despite that complaint has been filed on 04.11.2019.  Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that complainant has not been able to prove that there was any complaint which was not redressed after 15.04.2019. 
9. The Complainant therefore is not able to prove any deficiency on the part of OP.  Therefore, complaint of the complainant is dismissed. 

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 15.09.2019