1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Air Conditioner from OP.1 vide Batch No.1516 on 20.4.2015 for a sum of Rs.17, 621.15 with one year warranty and 2 years extended warranty and the OP.2 installed the said AC in the house of the complainant. It is submitted that on 26.5.2015 she found noise from the internal fan of the AC and cooling system was not working properly and on intimation the OP.2 sent his technician on 29.5.15 to check and repair the A.C. After repair again the complainant found the same problem on 10.7.15 and on contact the OP.2 sent his technician on 13.7.15 who opined that due to heavy dust the air filter and cooling system is not working and hence the technician replaced the air filter. It is further submitted that on 11.12.15 the complainant found that the internal fan is not working properly and the sensor point of the AC is not receiving the instruction of the remote controller and the cooling system is not working properly and on contact the OP.2 suggested the complainant to contact with OP.3 and did not attend the A.C. The complainant lodged a complaint with OP.3 on 21.2.16 who assured to send the technician of ASC but in vain and the A. C. is lying unused. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and defect in goods, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.3 to replace the defective AC with a new one of same cost and the Ops 1 & 2 to refund Rs.350/- and Rs.1000/- respectively as taken fraudulently and the Ops to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP. No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged A. C. to the complainant on 20.4.2015. Denying the taking of transportation charges of A.C. from the complainant the OP contended that the complainant herself arranged the vehicle and took the A.C. to her house. The OP also denied about fitting and fixing of A.C. through this men at the house of the complainant. It is contended that he has sold a brand new A.C. to the complainant on 20.4.15 by obtaining the same from the distributor on 12.4.15. The seal was opened in front of the complainant and on being satisfied only the complainant has taken the A.C. It is further contended that whenever a complaint comes from the complainant regarding any defect in the A.C., as duty bound, he has forwarded the same to ASC-OP.2. Thus denying any fault on its part, he prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The Op No.2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.3 filed counter through his A/R admitting that the complainant has purchased the A. C. on 20.4.15 from OP.1 for Rs.17, 621/- with one year warranty from the date of purchase. It is contended that the OP.2 has always provided prompt and perfect service to the complainant and hence there is no negligence in providing services to the complainant by Ops. The OP contended that the complainant has not made any written complaint either before OP.2 or before OP.3 and in absence of opinion report of an expert; the complainant cannot say that the A. C. has got its inherent manufacturing defect. It is also further submitted that the A. C. of the complainant is working perfectly as it was duly repaired by OP.2 and the complainant for wrongful gain has filed this case. Thus denying any fault on the part of the Ops, the OP.3 has prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of her case. The OP.2 filed affidavit on the date of hearing of this case. Heard from the A/Rs for complainant and OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case purchase of A.C by the complainant from OP.1 for Rs.17, 621/- on 20.4.15 with one year warranty is an admitted fact. The case of the complainant is that on 26.5.15 she found some sort of noise from the internal fan of the AC and cooling system was not working properly and the technician of OP.2 managed to repair the AC on 29.5.15. It is again stated that on 10.7.15 the complainant found the same problem in the AC and the OP.2 came on 13.7.15 and found that the air filter of the AC is full of dust for which the cooling system was not working and the OP.2 replaced the air filter with a new one. Again it is the case of the complainant that on 11.12.15 she found that the internal fan and sensor point are not working properly for which she contacted OP.2 on 13.12.15 but the OP.2 suggested contacting OP.3 without attending the defects. On contact to OP.3 though the complainant was assured but no technician came to the house of the complainant to repair the AC.
6. The OP No.3 in his counter as well as the OP.2 in his affidavit stated that the complainant has made complaints 2 times and the OP.2 has made necessary repairs on 29.5.15 and 13.7.15 and thereafter no complaint has been made by the complainant regarding any defect in the AC. Regarding heavy dust particles in the air filter, the OP.1 in his counter stated that he has sold the AC with sealed cover obtaining from M/s. Radharani Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Jeypore vide Billing dt.12.4.15 and sold the same to the complainant on 20.4.15 and the complainant has not alleged regarding sale of any unsealed AC to her. Hence question of heavy dust particle in the air filter is not possible before sale. The OP.1 also stated that whenever a complaint came from the complainant regarding defect in the AC, he immediately forwarded the same to ASC and the ASC has taken up necessary repairs timely. As such the OP.1 has not sold a defective AC to the complainant. The OP.1 also denied of taking any transportation charges from the complainant.
7. From the above discussions it is found that the AC of the complainant became defective to the extent of internal fan and cooling system and as per admission of the complainant, the defects were rectified by OP.2. As per allegation of the complainant, her AC became defective on 11.12.15 but the OP.2 without attending the defects, suggested to contact with OP.3. The complainant states that she made complaint with OP.3 on 21.2.16 and as no technician reported for repair; she made a written complaint with OP.1 on 12.3.16. Perused the copy of said letter in which the complainant has requested the OP.1 to replace the AC with a new one.
8. It is seen that the AC of the complainant has been attended by ASC two times and the complainant was satisfied with the services. It is a settled principle of law that for defect of a particular part, the entire AC machine cannot be replaced with a new one. The OP.2 in his affidavit stated that except those two occasions, the complainant has never made any complaint regarding any defects in the AC. Hence in our opinion, written complaint dt.12.3.16 to OP.1 by the complainant for replacing AC with a new one was not required as she was satisfied with the previous services extended to her. However, the complainant has suffered for the defects in the AC.
9. It is seen that the complainant is a lady and has faced problems due to the defects in the AC. After repairs, she also alleged about further defects in the AC. Hence it would be proper to direct the OP.3 to make fit the AC through its ASC for comfortable use of the complainant. Further it is seen that the complainant after couple of months of purchase, her AC became defective and the OP.2 has attended the defect 2 times and thereafter the complainant has also requested the OP.1 to replace the AC noticing further defect and has also filed this case incurring some expenditure. Hence she is entitled for some compensation. Considering her sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation in her favour will meet the ends of justice.
10. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to make the AC of the complainant use worthy and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
