Chandigarh District Commission Holds Daikin Air-Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. And Its Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service, Orders Refund And Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Daikin Air-Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer, Akshoka Enterprises, Mohali, liable for selling a defective AC unit with inadequate cooling issues and for their subsequent failure to replace it even during the warranty period. They were directed to refund the billed amount, pay Rs. 7,000/- compensation and Rs. 7,000/- litigation costs. Brief Facts: Mr Gurbax Rai (“Complainant”) purchased a Split AC and Stabilizer manufactured by Daikin Air-conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. (“Manufacturer”) from Ashoka Enterprises, Mohali (“Dealer”) for Rs. 39,000/-. Subsequently, the AC unit failed to generate adequate cooling, making the Complainant report the issue to Sant Enterprises (“Service Centre”). Despite attempts by the service personnel to rectify the problem, the AC continued to malfunction. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”). The Manufacturer asserted that after receiving a complaint about inadequate cooling, the AC unit was thoroughly examined and found to be in proper working condition, adhering to standard parameters. It further emphasized that it offered only product warranty, providing replacement of defective parts subject to the T&C outlined in the warranty card. It further argued that the term "warranty" pertained to the repair or replacement of damaged products within the warranty period, not the entire AC unit. On the other hand, the Dealer failed to appear before the District Commission. Observations by the Commission: While referring to the service reports, the District Commission noted that there was a consistent pattern indicating that the AC unit was indeed not delivering the expected cooling performance. The reports further highlighted issues related to the gas component of the AC Unit within a relatively short period after the purchase. Therefore, it held that there was a clear deficiency on the part of the Manufacturer. Further, the District Commission noted that the AC unit likely possessed an inherent manufacturing defect and consequently ruled in favour of the complainant. It directed the Manufacturer and its authorized dealer jointly liable to refund Rs. 28,050/- (after a 15% deduction for depreciation), pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for mental agony, and Rs. 7,000/- as litigation costs incurred by the complainant. Case: Gurbax Rai vs Daikin Air and others Case No.: CC/395/2020 Advocates for the Complainant: In Person Advocate for the Respondent: Nikhil Sharma Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chandigarh District Commission Holds Daikin Air-Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. And Its Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service, Orders Refund And Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Chandigarh District Commission Holds Daikin Air-Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. And Its Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service, Orders Refund And Compensation

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers