Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The complaint case since been allowed by the Ld. District Forum, aggrieved with such decision, the present Appeal is preferred by Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., the OP No. 2.

The facts, as depicted in the petition of complaints, in brief, are that the Complainant faced immense problem with an AC Machine that he purchased from the OP No. 1 on 29-04-2014.  Since repeated complaints lodged in this regard did not yield any positive result, the complaint was filed.

Per contra case of the OP No. 2 is that, the subject AC machine did not suffer from any sort of manufacturing defect.  However, the problem cropped up due to the fact that the same was installed by an unauthorized third person.  So, the Complainant was repeatedly requested to re-install the same through authorized service technician of the OP, but the Complainant was unwilling to bear the incidental cost.  Further case of the OP is that, despite such faulty installation, the machine worked perfectly fine for almost 1 year when the technician of the OP for the first time observed less cooling from the said AC.  On 04-04-2015, technician of the OP found that there was gas leakage which was causing less cooling.  The Complainant was, therefore, requested to allow the machine to be taken to the workshop to carry out due repairing.  However, the Complainant did not allow it and asked to do the needful at his house itself.  Therefore, the concerned technician vacuumed the subject unit and refilled gas on the spot and requested the Complainant to keep the subject unit under observation for 1-2 days, but the Complainant expressed his displeasure and sought for replacement of the same which was not possible given that the Complainant used the AC machine almost for one year and apart from chocking, there was no other problem in it which too occurred due to faulty installation. 

Decision with reasons

As the Respondents did not turn up before this Commission, the Appeal was heard ex parte. 

The subject AC Machine was purchased on 29-04-2014 and the first complaint was lodged by the Respondent No. 1 on 18-09-2014.  Thereafter, complaints were lodged on 06-03-2015, 17-03-2015, 21-03-2015, 28-03-2015 and 08-04-2015.  It is alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that from the very beginning, he encountered different kinds of problems like poor cooling, gas leakage, blockage of water in the inner unit of the AC machine etc.

On the other hand, in its WV, the Appellant stated that on 18-09-2014, 17-03-2015 and 21-03-2015, the Respondent No. 1 complained of ‘chocking’  and on 28-03-2015 and 08-04-2015, allegation of less cooling was made from the side of the Respondent No. 1 and on 06-03-2015, routine servicing was done. 

It is indeed surprising that the Appellant has not annexed the concerned job sheets to show that on the aforementioned dates apart from the nature of problem as mentioned hereinabove by the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 did not complaint of any other problem or that the concerned technicians attributed the problem to faulty installation. 

It is stated at page no. 3 of the WV that on 04-04-2015, when technician of the Appellant inspected the AC machine, he found that owing to leakage of gas, there was less cooling effect.  However, at page 5 of the WV, it is claimed that perturbed by repeated complaints of the Respondent No. 1, the technician concerned refilled gas.  Such contradictory versions do raise eyebrows.

It is also not understood, if indeed the technicians were certain that the entire problem cropped up owing to faulty installation, why did they repeatedly persist on taking the unit to their workshop. 

It is alleged by the Appellant that when its technician visited the residence of the Respondent No. 1, the latter snatched the service kit bag containing spare parts, tools etc. worth Rs. 10,000/- from the concerned technician and the same was returned after approx. 9 months on 12-01-2016.  If that was indeed true, one wonders why no police complaint was lodged against the Respondent No. 1.

In absence of cogent documentary proof like job card, we are unable to independently verify the authenticity of the claim of the Appellant that faulty installation was the real cause behind repeated malfunctioning of the AC Machine.  It also transpires that none of the technicians deposed before the Ld. District Forum to establish that they were indeed the victim of abuse/intimidation of the Respondent No. 1. 

It is nobody’s case that the Respondent No. 1 ever lodged false claim with the Appellant.  Despite repeated repairing, if similar problem resurfaces every now and then, it is indicative of the fact that the product is irreparable.  It is alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that ever since the technician of the Appellant attended to the AC machine on 04-04-2015, the machine has become totally useless.  The Appellant has not refuted such allegation by adducing relevant cogent documentary proof.

Accordingly, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  No order as to costs.