DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.564/2009
Sh. Balwant Singh
K-16, Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016 ….Complainant
Versus
1. The Allied Power System
Through its Proprietor
X-15, Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016
2. The Managing Director
M/s The Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd.
through its Managing Director
312-316, 3rd Floor, Near Sahara Mall,
Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon-122002, Haryana …Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 17.07.09 Date of Order : 27.01.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that on 14.07.08 he had bought a Carrier Window AC 1.5T from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- which was under the warranty for one year. In the month of May, 2009 the representatives of OP No.1, namely, Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Debu visited his place for inspection and service of the A.C. After the inspection, the representatives of OP No.1 told him that there was a gas leak problem and for that they have to take the machine at their work place. Having no other option, he allowed them to take the machine at their work place. In the evening, the representatives of OP No.1, namely, Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Munna brought the said machine to his house. He inspected the said machine and found that it was not the same one which was taken by the representative of OP No.1. He apprised this fact to the representatives of OP No.1 but they bluntly told him that it was the same machine and left his place. He sent mails and letters to the OP No.2 to send some senior member to check the manhandling and change of the parts of the A.C. The representative of OP No.2, namely, Mr. Satish visited his place and inspected the machine externally. A report was prepared and it was mentioned that the A.C. was in proper condition. He was asked to sign the said report which he did under protest. He sent a legal notice to the OPs but to no avail as nothing concrete had been done to sort out his grievance. OP No.2 after the inspection sent a letter to him informing that the machine was in proper condition and no part had been changed from it. He also lodged a complaint with the P.S. Hauz Khas but nothing has been done till date. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OPs to replace the said defective machine with the new one.
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for causing him mental agony, mental torture, harassment and financial loss etc.
- Direct the OPs to Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant as litigation and miscellaneous charges.
In the written statement OP No.2 has stated that on 26.05.09 the Complainant requested the OP No.1 to get the unit for servicing. OP No.1 sent the team of technicians for servicing the unit and on inspection it was found that there was gas leakage in the unit. On the same day, the unit was brought to the workshop of OP No.1 with the consent of the Complainant and the Complainant had also put his signature on the compressor for his identification. Thereafter, the said unit was delivered to the place of the Complainant and the same was carefully inspected by the Complainant and allowed the team of technicians of OP No.1 to install the unit. Again on 30.05.2009, the Complainant complained that the rear view of the unit was different from his 6-7 year old air conditioner and coil design of both the unit’s were different. Complainant was explained about the technology advancement in coil design and “the same is for better cooling and enhancing the efficiency of air conditioner” but the Complainant was insisting to get the said unit checked and verified from the engineers of OP No.2. On 06.06.09, Mr. Vijay Kumar (Senior Executive Customer Support) of OP No.2 personally visited the place of the Complainant and inspected the said unit and confirmed that everything was fine and the said unit was original and no parts had been changed by the OP No.1. On 18.06.09, Mr. Satish Sharma (Manager Service) of OP No.2 again inspected the said unit and verified that the same was original and 100% genuine and no parts had been changed or replaced. A email dated 22.06.09 was also sent to the Complainant from Mr. Vippin Datta (Service Delivery Head RLC Delhi) confirming that the said unit and parts thereof were original, genuine and nothing had been replaced by the OP No.1. OP No.2 has further stated that in compliance of the order dated 17.11.2009 of this Forum, OPs had again inspected the said unit (on 1-12-2009 vide Annexure. R3)and found that all the parts of the said unit are 100% genuine and no parts have been changed or replaced. Complainant has not filed any expert opinion/report to satisfy the contention/allegations in question. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
During the proceedings dated 02.02.10, OP No.1 has stated that it does not want to file separate reply and adopted the reply filed on behalf of OP No.2.
Thereafter, no one has appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 to contest the claim of the Complainant and, hence, OP No.1 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.03.11 passed by our Predecessors.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Sudarsan Gopalan, Manager (Legal) has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and OP No.2. We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and Counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased an AC from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2. As the AC was creating some problem he had informed the OP No.1 and the same was repaired by OP No.1 by taking the machine to their workshop for repair. When the machine was installed, the Complainant was of the view that the OP No.1 had changed the machine. The Complainant informed the OP No.2, OP No.2 sent the senior executive three times to check the genuineness of the machine and it was found that the OP No.1 had not changed any parts in the AC machine. Complainant has not filed any expert opinion/report on the file to prove to the contrary.
In view of the above, it appears that the AC was checked by OP No.2 two times before filing the case. Vide order dated 17.11.09 this Forum directed the OP No.2 to re-check the machine. The OP No.2 has informed that they again checked the machine and found that no part has been changed by the OP No.1. Hence, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 27.01.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 564/09
27.1.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
