BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ram Singh, R/o H.No.1452/19, Sec. 29-B, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  The Carrier Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. through its Managing Director, Regd. Nursing Pur, Kherki Daula Post, Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.    Pinky Radios through its Prop. SCO No.369, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, Authorized Service Provider of Carrier Air Conditioning & Refrigeration.

                                                      ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL,                      PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL,    MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Dinesh Badhwar, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Raj Karan, Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Arun Kumar, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

             As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant purchased Window Air Conditioner make Carrier for her daughter from OP No.2 vide invoice No.7362 dated 23.2.2010 alongwith voltage stabilizer for an amount of Rs.21,500/- with a warranty of 24 months. It is alleged that in the month of May, the said AC started giving problems of draining system and giving leakage from all sides of the AC. The complainant immediately reported to OP No.2, who sent his mechanic on 21.6.2010 and he reported that complainant be provided with water tray. The AC was still giving the problem. The OP No.2 sent his mechanic on 25.6.2010 and rectified the defect. It is further alleged that after few days, the complainant again faced the same problem in the AC. The OP No.2 again sent his mechanic on 30.6.2010 and 23.8.2010, but the defect could not be rectified. Even the technical staff failed to rectify the problem and admitted that the AC is required to be replaced as there is a manufacturing defect. Inspite of repeated requests and legal notice, the OPs failed to replace the AC with a new one and also failed to refund the invoice amount of Rs.21,000/-. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             OP No.1 filed their reply and stated that complaints were attended by engineers/technicians. It was identified that the water leakage was on account of the clog in the drain system, which leads to water leakage in the unit. The instruction booklet makes it mandatory on the complainant to regularly clean the drain system failing which it may get clogged, resulting in water leakage. It is replied that lack of reading the instruction manual by the complainant cannot be a reason for replacement of AC. It is further replied that OP provided comprehensive warranty for a period of one year on the AC and not for 24 months. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Sufficient opportunity was granted to OP No.2 to file their reply and evidence, but they failed and hence their defence was struck of vide order dated 18.5.2011.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             The sole grouse of the Complainant is that the Air Conditioner purchased by him from OP No.2 was having water leakage problem. His contention is that it was owing to manufacturing defect in the said Air Conditioner. That the Technicians of the OPs failed to rectify the defect of water leakage. Faced with this situation, when he requested the OPs to replace the Air Conditioner in question, they put off the matter on lame excuses, without giving any reasonable explanation, nor paid any heed to his genuine requests and ultimately, refused to replace the said Air Conditioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner, so there was no question of replacing the unit, as claimed by the Complainant. The unit was diligently attended by Service Engineer of the OPs on lodging complaint by the Complainant. Moreover, on all the occasions pursuant to attending complaint and service call, the unit was working in good condition. As the problem was only with regard to water leakage, the Technician of OPs provided a Tray to the Complainant for water storage. 

7.             A careful perusal of the entire record would reveal that the Complainant lodged complaint on 30.6.2010, 19.8.2010 and 23.8.2010 (Ex.RW 1/3 to RW 1/5) regarding water leakage. During the visits of Technicians, it was identified that the water leakage was on account of clog in the drain system, which lead to water leak in the unit. These clogs, in our opinion, is not under the control of the OPs and was attributable to Complainant’s negligence himself, as it was for him to regularly clean the drain system, failing which it may get clogged, resulting in water leakage. As such, the alleged problem of water leakage in the unit cannot be termed as manufacturing defect. 

8.             Besides this, learned counsel for OP No. 1, during the course of arguments, agreed that OP No.1 is ready to rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner. Admittedly, the Complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove any inherent or manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner. The self-serving affidavit of Complainant is not sufficient to prove the said fact. So, the direction to the OPs either to replace the Air Conditioner in question with a new one, or to refund the amount of Rs.21,500/-(the price of the Air Conditioner), along with interest, cannot be issued.

9.             In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for OP No.1 that OP No.1 is ready to rectify the defect, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner in question, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, free of cost, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.