The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Air Conditioner Model No.IST MAGL Cool PRO 3 C Corp INV-I, IDU : 2196101461, 4218121190101461, Sl.No.INM-190150078 of WHIRLPOOL Company from the OP.2 vide Invoice No.3347 on 26.03.2019 with 10 years warranty and installed the same in his house. It is submitted that on 12.05.2019 the AC did not run properly with cooling air. On complaint to OP.2, it advised to lodge complaint with OP.3. The OP.3 on approach, assured to send technician to the house of the complainant but no one turned up to repair the AC after several approach. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to rectify the AC or to replace the same with a new one and the Ops 1, 2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 13, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant. The complainant has filed an application u/s. 13 3(B) praying interim direction to the Ops either to rectify the defect or to replace the AC with a new one.
2. The Ops 2 & 4 has neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner. The Ops 1 & 3 filed counter through their advocate stating that the OP.3 soon after receipt of complaint, deputed his technician namely Riyaz Akhtar Khan on 15.05.2019, who attempted to improve the cooling and restored the cooling perfectly but the complainant not being satisfied with the cooling, the OP.1 instructed his dealer to replace the AC with a new one at the earliest. As the same model AC was not available with the dealer, it got the same transported from Bhubaneswar Branch of OP.1 after due process. It is submitted that soon after receipt of the new AC, the same has been replaced free of cost in the premises of the complainant on 13.06.2019. It is further submitted that the order dt.31.05.2019 of the Forum to rectify the AC was taken up and instead of rectifying the problem, the AC was replaced with a new one. Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to close the proceeding since the Ac has been replaced.
3. In this case, the AC in question was purchased on 26.03.2019 and it did not function satisfactorily on 12.05.2019. The complainant stated that he approached OP.2 and lodged complaint with OP.3 but no mechanic came to rectify the defect. The OP No.1 & 3 stated that soon after receipt of complaint they deputed a technician on 15.05.2019 who restored the cooling perfectly but the complainant was not satisfied. The complainant not being satisfied with the performance of the AC, the OP.1 instructed OP.2 to replace the Ac with a new one but it took some time to replace as because the same model of AC was not available with OP.2 and the same was transported from Bhubaneswar No job card is filed by the OP.1 regarding their attempt to rectify the defect in the AC soon after getting complaint. However, they have replaced the AC free of cost on 13.06.2019.
4. It is seen from the above facts that the dealer as duty bound has provided necessary assistance to the complainant for lodging complaint with the service branch of the Company. It is not forthcoming on which circumstances, the technician could not prepare job sheet while attempting repairs to bring back the cooling of the AC. However, as per interim direction of the Forum, the Ops have acted upon and replaced the defecting AC. Thus we do not find any deficiency in service committed specifically by the Ops to saddle with compensation on them. However, feeling inconvenience, the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some cost. The complainant has filed this case self. Hence a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation, in our opinion, will meet the ends of justice.
5. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation in this case to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. No orders against the other Ops.
(to dict.)
