Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Ravinder Bajaj complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  12 & 13 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased  a carrier Midea AC 1.5 Ton Split- 18K Elektra Invert alongwith Data Vision Stabilizer 4 KV 170-280 on 2.5.2016 with Invoice No. Bajaj-273. After one month of purchase, some trouble  in respect of colling arises in the said AC . The complainant made complaint to the customer care as well as Sound Trading company telephonically. After two days of the said complaint, a technician came to attend the complaint, who found that there is some defect in PCB of the outdoor unit of the said AC. The said PCB was replaced with the new PCB. However, after replacing the said PCB, the cooling in the said AC was not proper. The complainant approached  Sound Trading company and described his problem to the concerned person. Sound Trading Company sent a technician, who found that there is a leakage in the compressor outline pipe and with the help of soap the pipe was repaired. After this the said AC worked properly but after sometime in the indoor unit some drop of water has been dropped out  continuously . The complainant sent e-mails to the company and also made various complaint telephonically  and also approached Sound Trading company . The representative of Sound Trading company assured the complainant that the defective unit will be replaced with new model, but till date nothing has been done . Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite parties be directed to replace the outdoor as well as indoor unit  with new one ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2  appeared and filed separate written versions.

3.       Opposite party No.1 in its written version has submitted that the complaint against opposite party No.1 is not legally maintainable because after sale the entire responsibility is of the company and the service centre. It was submitted that complainant had never approached opposite party No.1 after purchase of the product. The dispute was between the complainant and opposite party No.2. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was made.

4.       Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that  the complainant has violated the terms of warranty by getting the said AC installed through unauthorized third party. As per the terms of warranty the said AC should be installed either by the answering opposite party or any of its Authorized dealers. However, contrary to the terms of warranty the complainant had omitted to install the said AC through the answering opposite party or its authorized dealer . But despite this the answering opposite party in order to maintain customer goodwill had repaired the said AC free of cost on 11.7.2016. It was submitted that under the terms of warranty, which are binding on the complainant, the answering opposite  party is liable only to repair or replace the defective parts, if any. Hence, the demand of the complainant for replacement of the said AC is liable to be rejected. It was submitted that the defect in PCB does not fall under the category of manufacturing defect. This is a minor fault and the same has been rectified by the answering opposite party through minor repairs. It was submitted that the replacement of the said AC can be given only in case of manufacturing defects in the said AC and the onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on the complainant. On merits it was submitted that the first complaint from the complainant was received on 5.7.2016. On receipt of the said complaint the technician of the answering opposite party visited the complainant on 7.7.2016 and found that the PCB of the said AC had become defective.  When this fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant, he became very annoyed and refused to get the said AC repaired by saying that the AC is only 2 months old and hence, he wants replacement of the said AC. Therefore, the technician had no option but to leave the complainant’s place without repairing the said AC. Thereafter the Senior representative of the opposite party explained the complainant that due to defect in small part, the AC cannot be replaced   but the same will be repaired free of cost. On this persuasion  the complainant allowed the technician to replace the PCB on 11.7.2016. Thereafter the complainant was called to verify the proper functioning of the AC, but the complainant did not answer the said call. Therefore, an e-mail dated 20.7.2016 was sent to the complainant requesting him to confirm the proper functioning of the said AC. It was submitted that after the replacement of the PCB on 11.7.2016, there was no further complaint from the complainant. But on 26.7.2016 answering opposite party received a complaint of water leakage. When the technician of the opposite party contacted the complainant to check the said AC, the complainant flatly refused the same and demanded replacement of the said AC. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was made.

5.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 2.5.2016 ExC-2, coies of e-mails Ex.C-3 and C-4, copy of phone calls detail Ex.C-5.

6.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Ajay Shanker,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.

7.       On the other hand  Sh. Ajay Mehta,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Arpita Duarah,Sr. Manager (Legal) Ex.OP2/1, copy of special power of attorney Ex.OP2/2, copy of warranty terms and conditions Ex.OP2/3, copy of e-mail Ex.OP2/4  and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.

8.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

9.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and has submitted that complainant  purchased  a carrier Midea AC 1.5 Ton Split- 18K Elektra Invert alongwith Data Vision Stabilizer 4 KV 170-280 on 2.5.2016 with Invoice No. Bajaj-273, copy of bill is Ex.C-2 on record. It was the case of the complainant that after one month of purchase, some trouble  in respect of colling arises in the said AC . In this regard complainant made complaint to the customer care as well as Sound Trading company telephonically. To prove the said fact the complainant has placed on record detail of phone calls Ex.C-5 on record. On the complaint of the complainant, a technician came to attend the complaint, who replaced the  PCB with the new PCB. However, after replacing the said PCB, the cooling in the said AC was not proper. The complainant brought the fact to the knowledge of   Sound Trading company , who sent a technician, who found that there is a leakage in the compressor outline pipe and with the help of soap the pipe was repaired. After this the said AC worked properly but after sometime in the indoor unit some drop of water has been dropped out  continuously . The complainant sent e-mails to the company , copies of e-mails  are Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 on record . The complainant also made various complaints telephonically  and also approached Sound Trading company . The representative of Sound Trading company assured the complainant that the defective unit will be replaced with new model, but till date nothing has been done .

10.     On the other hand  opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that complainant has violated the terms of warranty by getting the said AC installed through unauthorized third party. It was submitted that the complainant had omitted to install the said AC through the answering opposite party or its authorized dealer . It was further submitted that  the first complaint from the complainant was received on 5.7.2016. On receipt of the said complaint the technician of the answering opposite party visited the complainant on 7.7.2016 and found that the PCB of the said AC had become defective.  But, however the complainant refused to get the said AC repaired by saying that the AC is only 2 months old and wants replacement of the said AC. However on the  persuasion of the Senior Representative of the answering opposite party,  the complainant allowed the technician to replace the PCB on 11.7.2016. Thereafter the complainant was called to verify the proper functioning of the AC, but the complainant did not answer the said call. Therefore, an e-mail dated 20.7.2016 was sent to the complainant requesting him to confirm the proper functioning of the said AC, copy of e-mail accounts for Ex.OP2/4. It was submitted that after the replacement of the PCB on 11.7.2016, there was no further complaint from the complainant. But on 26.7.2016 answering opposite party received a complaint of water leakage. When the technician of the opposite party contacted the complainant to check the said AC, the complainant flatly refused the same and demanded replacement of the said AC. It was submitted that the defect in PCB does not fall under the category of manufacturing defect. This is a minor fault and the same has been rectified by the answering opposite party through minor repairs. It was submitted that the replacement of the said AC can be given only in case of manufacturing defects in the said AC and the onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that in these circumstances , there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

11.     From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the AC 1.5 Ton Split  in question from opposite party No.1  (manufactured by opposite party No.2), vide invoice dated 2.5.2016 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 44500/-. As per complainant’s version, the AC was giving problem in respect of cooling. The matter was reported to the opposite party No.1 as well as customer care. On the complaint of the complainant, technician of the opposite party came  and replaced the PCB with new PCB. The complainant has submitted  that  even thereafter the said AC did not work properly and he made complaints telephonically with the opposite party . On this technician of the opposite party came and repaired the outline pipe. It was the case of the complainant that after the repair of pipe the AC worked with well cooling but after sometime in the indoor unit some drop of water has been dropped out continuously and complaint  made complaints through e-mails to the opposite party. But, however, copies of e-mails Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 dated 14.7.2016 and 12.7.2016 respectively shows that these complaints are before the replacement of PCB as well as repair of pipe. It was the admitted case of the complainant that after the repair of pipe the AC worked with well cooling . So the plea of the complainant that some drop of water has been dropped out continuously and  in this regard complaint  made complaints. But no evidence has been produced on record to prove that the complainant has moved any complaint regarding leaking of water from the inner unit of the AC.  Whereas the opposite party has admitted that the technician of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant, thoroughly checked the AC and PCB  of the said AC has been replaced.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the parts of the unit has been replaced as per warranty terms and conditions . However, the complainant could not produce any evidence in the form of statement of any mechanic or engineer expert to prove that there is any manufacturing or inherent defect in the refrigerator in question, which is not repairable. It is further contended that for proving the manufacturing defect, report of expert is essential. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobile Shastri Nagar, Jharkhand 2012 NCJ 917(NC) wherein it has been laid down that to prove the manufacturing defect in vehicle a report of expert is essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect should have been adduced . Mere fact that the product was taken to the service station for one and two times does not ipso facto proves the manufacturing defect, but the complainant has filed the complaint with malafide intentions to extract money from the replying opposite parties by dragging them in this frivolous and baseless litigation. So the request of the complainant, for the refund of the sale price alongwith interest is not tenable.

12.     However, as the complainant has filed the present complaint within the warranty period of one year. So this complaint is disposed of with the direction to the opposite party No.2 to repair the AC unit of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant  without charging any amount/fee from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order . Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of  Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. However, opposite party No.1 has only sold the product to the complainant and the complainant has not proved any deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1. So complaint against opposite party No.1 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 25.5.2017