Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Mukesh Gupta against opposite parties i.e. Whirlpool of India Pvt. Ltd. 28 NIT, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman. and other functionaries seeking direction against them to replace the defective Air Conditioner and for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.<br /> 2. In nutshell facts in the complaint are that he purchased a split Air Conditioner of 1.5 ton capacity PREMIU 1803 of Whirlpool mark from opposite party No.1 and delivered the said A.C. to the complainant at his house by Salesman of opposite party No.3 and received payment of Rs. 19800/- on 18/7/07 and assured him that there would be no problem in the Air Connditioner as it is in perfect condition and further assured that if there would be some problem, there is another service centre of the Company at Kapurthala i.e. opposite party No.2 who can be approached. . It is further alleged that he was shocked to find some manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner as there was crack in the Indo-unit base and the A.C. was not properly cooling. He immediately lodged his complaint to opposite party No.3 who advised him to lodge his complaint through call centre and he lodged his complaint through call centre on 21/7/07. However, the mechanic of opposite party No.2 could not remove defects in the A.C. despite the fact that he made complaints to the opposite parties continuously and alo written complaint dated 19/11/2007 to opposite party No.1 but nothing was done by them. He suffered much inconvenience and embarrassment in summer season because of non service of the opposite party Company to remove the defects in the A.C. which amounts to deficiency in service on their part against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties were served through registered post but opposite parties No.2 and 3 failed to appear and as such was proceeded exparte. Only opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which opposite party controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and intentionally concealed certain facts. On merits purchase of split A.C. from the Company by the complainant is not disputed.It is however, pleaded that delivery of product is always accompanied with warranty. Complainant is silent on material evidence regarding warranty and filing copy terms of warranty on the product regarding installation of A.C.. It is not the case of the complainant that Indo-unit was found crack at the time of unpacking and the authorized service station have noticed the same at the time of installation and assured to replace the Indo-unit. It is denied that A.C. purchased by the complainant was having any manufacturing defect . It is further denied that opposite party No.1 had sold defective product. Complainant has not filed any authenticated report regarding nature of crack, cause of crack and the alleged crack was removable or not by repairing or replacing the defective parts. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 had never denied to provide its services and the product is still covered under warranty and in case there is any defect in the product and complainant is interest to get set right the same under terms of warranty then opposite party No.1 is still ready to provide its services under the warranty. Opposite party No.1 has also deputed its Territory Service Executive but complainant had refused to get inspect and avail the after sales service under the warranty and raised unjustified demand of replacement. which is beyond limitation of warranty. No such assurance of replacement under warranty was given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Therefore, there is question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to c7.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party No.1 produced in evidence only one affidavit Ex.R1.<br /> 6. Since counsel for both the parties failed to appear for arguments though evidence has been led by both the parties, we have gone through the pleadings of the parties and also evidence in support of their respective pleas. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a split Air Conditioner of 1.5 ton capacity PREMIU 1803 of Whirlpool mark from opposite party on payment of Rs.19800/- vide invoice dated 18/7/07 Ex.C5 but just after two days of delivery of Air Conditioner at his house, there appeared to be manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner as there was crack in the Indo-unit base and the A.C. was not properly cooling despite lodging complaints to the opposite party through call centre on 21/7/07. However, the mechanic of opposite party No.2 could not clear the fault in the A.C.. He lodged written complaint on 19/11/2007 to opposite party NO.1 but nothing was done and as such he suffered inconvenience on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The plea of the opposite party is that in the absence of evidence regarding nature of crack supported by authenticated report of expert and qualified person of Central approved laboratries, complainant has no case and allegation of crack due to manufacturing defect is liable to be rejected. It is however, pleaded in para-4 of the written statement that opposite party No.1 never denied to provide its services and product is still covered under warranty and in case there is any defect in the product and complainant is interested to set right the same under the terms of warranty, then opposite party No.1 is still ready to provide its services under the warranty. It is further pleaded that alleged crack in the Indo-unit does not affect its working. Complainant has reiterated his allegations about manufacturing defect in the A.C. as the A.C. was not properly cooling. Affidavit of one Harmesh Kumar Ex.C2 has also been filed in support of the grievances of the complainant besides number of applications Ex.C3 and C4 through registered post to the opposite party. To counter the same, in para-9 of the affidavit of S.G.Acharya Branch Service Manager Ex.R1, this fact is stated that opposite party No.1 deputed its territory Service Executive but complainant had refused to get inspect and avail the after sales service under the warranty and raised unjustified demand of replacement.. On 29/7/08, opposite party was directed to depute service engineer to rectify the defect in the A.C. in question and put it into smooth working condition with further report on 5/8/08 but none appeared on behalf of opposite party for the purpose of amicable settlement.. Therefore, we find veracity of complaints of the complainant that fault was not removed in the working of A.C. purchased by the complainant from the opposite party and that engineer if any deputed could not be able to set right the faulty/defective A.C. The fact that there was repeated break down in the functioning of A.C. and affecting its cooling as articulated by the complainant , a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was inherent manufacturing defect in it warranting for its replacement.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we accept this complaint and order for replacement of split A.C. of 1.5 ton capacity PREMIU 1803 of Whirlpool mark with further Rs.3000/- as monetary compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings besides Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation payable by the opposite partiesto the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 19.8.2008 Member President