Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Ajay Kumar Saini has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that he purchased one Daikin AC 108 Ton 2 Star from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.38,500/- vide bill No. 4224 dated 5.4.2016. That right from the date of purchase of the said Air Conditioner, it showed various defects in it and its compressor was not working properly. The Air Conditioner was purchased in the month of April, 2016 and it became defective within a very short period and the defect arose within the warranty period. The Opposite Parties  have sold the defective Air Conditioner. The complainant has made complaints to the Opposite Parties, but they are lingering on the matter and have not repaired the Air Conditioner till now. The purpose for which the Air Conditioner was purchased has not been solved and the complainant is facing hardship in these days of peak summer season. The complainant requested the Opposite Party either to replace the defective Air Conditioner with new one or in the alternative to refund the whole amount of the Air Conditioner with interest thereon, but they refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties  may be directed to either  replace the Air Conditioner with new one or in the alterative to refund the whole sale price of the Air Conditioner to the complainant.

b)      Compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- be awarded.

c)       Any other relief to which the complainant may be found entitled may also be awarded to the complainant.

 Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the claim of the complainant taking preliminary objections inter alia therein that admittedly the complainant purchased the Air Conditioner in question vide bill dated 5.4.2016 and after installation of said Air Conditioner unit at the premises, it was working efficiently with full satisfaction of the complainant. As per the rule, a technician is appointed whenever a service call is registered by the customer. On receipt of service call, service technician visited the premises of the complainant. On inspection, it was found that Air Conditioner was working in perfect condition and cooling problem was only because of want of regular check up and maintenance. Accordingly, proper maintenance service was provided by the service engineer after which Air Conditioner was functioning absolutely fine. The service engineer had done necessary service of the Air Conditioner unit and given user instruction to the complainant for getting good cooling. However, the complainant was insisting for replacement of Air Conditioner unit and alleging that machine is defective, but the fact remains that there is no issue with the installed machine. The same fact was also informed  to the complainant, but to the utter dismay despite of understanding the proper functioning of the Air Conditioner unit he started levelling unnecessary claims on the make of the Air Conditioner. On merits, it is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the subjected AC. The complainant has no proof of the same to put on record. It is pertinent to mention over here that whenever the complainant registered his service call, a technician was appointed to attend the call. On 29.6.2016 the complainant made a complaint relating to regular maintenance service and accordingly, the proper service was provided to the complainant’s satisfaction. Upon in depth checking of AC unit, minor leakage was found in the pin valve and the same was rectified also. After the rectification, gas was also filled to enable machine to provide maximum output.  On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 took almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered  his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence on behalf of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.S.P.Singh, Deputy Manager Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/4 and  closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

6.       We have heard the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       In his submissions, the complainant has reiterated the averments made in his complaint and contended that he purchased one Daikin AC 108 Ton 2 Star from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.38,500/- vide bill No. 4224 dated 5.4.2016, copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C1. It is contended that right from the date of purchase of the said Air Conditioner, it showed various defects in it and its compressor was not working properly. The Air Conditioner was purchased in the month of April, 2016 and it became defective within a very short period and the defect arose within the warranty period. The Opposite Parties have sold the defective Air Conditioner. The complainant has made complaints to the Opposite Parties, but they are lingering on the matter and have not repaired the Air Conditioner till now. The purpose for which the Air Conditioner was purchased has not been solved and the complainant is facing hardship in these days of peak summer season. The complainant requested the Opposite Party either to replace the defective Air Conditioner with new one or in the alternative to refund the whole amount of the Air Conditioner with interest thereon, but they refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has vehemently repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that after installation of said Air Conditioner unit at the premises, it was working efficiently with full satisfaction of the complainant. As per the rule, a technician is appointed whenever a service call is registered by the customer. On receipt of service call, service technician visited the premises of the complainant. On inspection, it was found that Air Conditioner was working in perfect condition and cooling problem was only because of want of regular check up and maintenance. Accordingly, proper maintenance service was provided by the service engineer after  which Air Conditioner was functioning absolutely fine. The service engineer had done necessary service of the Air Conditioner unit and given user instruction to the complainant for getting good cooling. However, the complainant was insisting for replacement of Air Conditioner unit and alleging that machine is defective, but the fact  remains that there is no issue with the installed machine. The same fact was also informed  to the complainant, but to the utter dismay despite of understanding the proper functioning of the Air Conditioner unit he started levelling unnecessary claims on the make of the Air Conditioner. On merits, it is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the subjected AC. The complainant has no proof of the same to put on record. It is pertinent to mention over here that whenever the complainant registered his service call, a technician was appointed to attend the call. On 29.6.2016 the complainant made a complaint relating to regular maintenance service and accordingly, the proper service was provided to the complainant’s satisfaction. Upon in depth checking of AC unit, minor leakage was found in the pin valve and the same was rectified also. After the rectification, gas was also filled to enable machine to provide maximum output.

9.       It is not disputed that the Air Conditioner in question has been stopped working within warranty period of one year as it was admitted purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 vide   bill No. 4224 dated 5.4.2016 (copy of bill accounts for Ex.C1) for Rs.38,500/- from Opposite Party No.1 being the dealer of Opposite Party No.2 company. It is also not disputed that the warranty was provided by the company as mentioned in terms and conditions filed by Opposite Party No.2 Ex.Op2/2 which is admitted by the Opposite Parties.  It is also admitted by  Opposite Party No.2 that on 29.6.2016 the complainant made a complaint relating to regular maintenance service and accordingly, the proper service was provided to the complainant’s satisfaction. Upon in depth checking of AC unit, minor leakage was found in the pin valve and the same was rectified also. But the case of the complainant is that the Air Conditioner is still not working properly. Moreover, if the Air Conditioner in question was perfectly working, then there was no need for the complainant to file this complaint after expensing hefty amount on documents as well as by engaging counsel.   The very fact that the Opposite Party No.2 has lingered on the matter and to repair the Air Conditioner in  dispute  ever since April, 2016  shows that the complainant is suffering in the hands of Opposite Parties  since April, 2016 and in this way, the complainant was compelled to file this complaint to redress his grieve by spending huge amount on the complaint which shows deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. But however, the  claim of the complainant for the replacement of the Air Conditioner in question or to refund its price is not tenable because the complainant has nowhere produced any proof or expert report that the Air Conditioner in question having any manufacturing defect.  In such a situation, the   Opposite Parties   are definitely liable to repair the Air Conditioner in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount since the Air Conditioner in dispute happen to be within warranty period. 

10.     Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds  and the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to repair the Air Conditioner in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount, within one month from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2  shall   refund the sale price of the Air Conditioner in dispute i.e. Rs.38,500/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full and final payment. The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2  are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.  Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2  are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order.  However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 02.03.2017.                  (Rachna Arora)                      (Anoop Sharma)                                                         Member                           Presiding Member