DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 203/2014
Date of Institution : 18.09.2014
Date of Decision : 16.03.2015
In the matter of:
Gautam Goyal s/o Sh. Ishwar Anand Goyal resident of 48 Aastha Enclave, Dhanaula Road, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Surindera Radio and Watch Co., Sadar Bazar, Barnala through its partner/prop.
2. M/s Dhaliwal Air Conditioning, Jandawala Road, Near 2 Darwaze, Barnala through its partner/prop.
3. M/s Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd., SCF No. 7, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Head.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. RK Singla Advocate
For opposite party No. 1 : Sh. Varinder Goel Advocate
For opposite party No. 2 : Sh. BB Menon Advocate
For opposite party No. 3 : Exparte
ORDER: BY SH. SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Gautam Goyal complainant (hereinafter referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein referred as to OPs for short), on the ground that, CC purchased four Daikin Air Conditioners from OP-1 vide bill No. 33705 dated 14.7.2013 and paid a sum of Rs. 1,45,600/- to it, who is the authorized dealer of OP-3, whereas OP-2 is the authorized service centre of OP-3. These all Air Conditioners have a warranty of 24 months.
It is submitted that, soon after the purchase of Air Conditioners one of the Air Conditioner bearing Model ACFTK050FUM, which was purchased for Rs. 41,900/- started giving trouble of starting. CC lodged the complaint with OP-1, who told that, it is the duty of OP-2 to rectify the problem. CC approached the OP-2, who sent his mechanics many a times to the remove the defect in the Air Conditioner, but to no effect.
It is further submitted that, in the month of April 2014 OP-2 told the CC that, Air Conditioner bears manufacturing defect, so the same can be rectified only by the qualified Engineers of OP-3. Thereafter, CC lodged his complaint with OP-3 on 17.5.2014. Then, the Engineers of OP-3 alongwith mechanics of OP-2 visited the residence of CC and checked the defective Air Conditioner and admitted that, due to some manufacturing defect the AC bears the starting trouble. Further, they changed one part of the AC named Printed Circuit ASSY having code S1386790 amounting to Rs. 6,224/- and not charged any amount from the CC, as the Air Conditioner in dispute was under warranty.
It is further submitted that, even thereafter, Air Conditioner continued with the same problem. Thereafter, CC lodged many complaints with the OPs on 16.6.2014, 7.7.2014, 11.7.2014, 17.7.2014, 29.7.2014 and 31.7.2014, but none of the OPs visited the premises of the CC for the rectification of the problem and family of CC face inconvenience in all the summer season without AC, even after spending so amount on it.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, CC has sought the following reliefs against the OPs.-
1) OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 41,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization to the CC.
2) OPs be further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
Complaint of the CC is signed and verified. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, OP-1 has admitted that, answering OP is the authorized dealer of OP-3 and only a selling point for the products of OP-3. It is submitted that, ACs in question were purchased by the answering OP vide invoice bearing No. 00663 dated 21.5.2013 from OP-3. CC after due inquiry from the market and with his free will purchased four Air Conditioners vide bill dated 14.7.2013 from the answering OP. It is submitted that, OP-2 is the authorized service centre of OP-3 and responsible for providing all the after sale services on behalf of OP-3.
It is further submitted that, it was explained to the CC at the time of sale that, services under warranty will be provided by OP-2 on behalf of OP-3 and all the complaints be lodged with OP-2 or OP-3. OP-1 has no role in providing after sale services. CC never approached the answering OP with any type of complaint.
Thus alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The version of OP-1 is signed and verified.
In reply, OP-2 has admitted that, OP-1 is the authorized dealer of OP-3 and both the OPs-1 and 3 are responsible for sale, service and warranty. OP-2 used to deal in general repair work on call by the dealers in the city. It is further submitted that, complaints are to be lodged direly with OPs-1 and 3, so the answering OP has no knowledge about any complaint. It is further submitted that, OP-2 never attended any complaint from the CC.
Thus alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The version of OP-2 is signed and verified by the Advocate for OP-2.
The OP-3 has preferred to remain exparte.
3. CC in support of his claim, has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of service report Ex.C-2, copy of invoice Ex.C-3, warranty card Ex.C-4, visiting card Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of the CC, OP-1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurdeep Singh Walia Ex.OP-1/1, copy of bill dated 21.5.2013 Ex.OP-1/2 and closed its evidence. Further, OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.OP-2/1 and closed its evidence.
5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, versions filed by the OPs-1 and 2 and evidence of parties and also heard counsel for the parties at length.
6. It is an admitted fact that, CC had purchased the Air Conditioner in question from the OP-1, which is manufactured by OP-3. It is also admitted that, OP-1 is the authorized dealer and OP-2 is the authorized service centre of OP-3. It is further admitted fact that, the Air Conditioner in dispute had purchased by the OP-1 from the OP-3 vide bill No. 663 dated 21.5.2013 Ex.OP-1/2, which was further sold to the CC vide bill No. 33705 dated 14.7.2013 Ex.C-3.
It is proved on the file that, the Air Conditioner purchased by the CC having the warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase or 15 months from the date of dispatch, which ever is earlier on all parts except from grill and plastic parts and thereafter 48 months additional warranty on the compressor from the end of initial warranty of the product and this fact is proved from the original warranty card Ex.C-4 and not disputed by any of the OPs.
It is further proved on the file that, CC many times approached the OPs for the removal of the defect in the Air Conditioner in dispute and even the OP-2 replaced one main part of the Air Conditioner costing Rs. 6,224/- and did not charge any amount from the CC, which fact is mentioned by the CC himself in his complaint and also proved from the document Ex.C-2.
It is further proved on the file that, OP-3 intentionally not appeared in the Forum to contest the claim of the CC. Firstly, the OP-3 did not appear before this Forum despite sending of notice to it through registered post on 4.10.2014 and proceeded against exparte on 3.11.2014. Secondly, it cannot be believed that, OPs-1 and 2, who are the authorized sale point and authorized service centre of OP-3 at Barnala contesting the present complaint never informed the OP-3 about the pendency of the present complaint before this Forum, but OP-3 intentionally not appeared before this Forum to contest the claim of the CC, which means that, OP-3 has nothing to say about the claim of the CC and there must have some manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner in dispute manufactured by the OP-3.
Further, OP-2 also denied that, they ever attended the complaint of the CC, but Ex.C-5 which is the visiting card of the OP-2 proves that, CC definitely approached the OP-2 to remove the defect in the Air Conditioner purchased by him from OP-1.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Gujrat State Commission in case titled Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Dinesh Thakur & Others reported 2014 (2) CLT-381 (GJ) that.-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g)- Manufacturing defect- Within two months of the purchase of the new Honda City car, the tyre of the car was damaged-Held-When the tyre was damaged within 2 months, it was the duty of the manufacturer of the tyre to show reasons for the damage and they failed to do so- It was for the appellant to prove before the Forum that the damage caused to the tyre was not due to any manufacturing defect-Appeal dismissed.”
Similarly, in the present case manufacturer failed to show reasons for the defect in the Air Conditioner and also failed to prove before the Forum that the defect arose in the Air Conditioner was not due to any manufacturing defect, but OP-3 preferred to remain exparte and not contested the case of the CC. Further, CC clearly mentioned in his complaint that, immediately after the purchase of Air Conditioner in dispute, it has given problem of starting, which fact also not denied by any of the OPs.
In view of the aforementioned facts, circumstances and citation, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP-3. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint against the OP-3 and order the OP-3 to replace the defective Air Conditioner of the CC with a new one of the same model alongwith new warranty. We further order the OP-3 to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the CC for causing physical and mental harassment to him and also dragging him into unwanted litigation.
This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
16th Day of March 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
