Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

            The point arises for consideration in this appeal as to whether or not the Ld. DCDRF was justified in passing the order impugned.

            On close scrutiny of the materials on record it emerges that on 05.06.2012 the Complainant purchased one ton split A.C. Machine being Make - Carrier, Model 'Durakool Star' at a consideration amount of Rs.27,400/- only from Opposite Party No.3.  The said machine was installed on 10.06.2012.  Be it mentioned here that the Opposite Party No.3 is authorised dealer of the product in question while the Opposite Party No.1 is the Manager of the Maker/Product and Opposite Party No.2 is a authorised Service Dealer of the product in question.  It also emerges that soon after purchase it was found that the said machine was a defective one and started giving trouble.  On 14.08.2012 an inspection was made by the technicians of the Opposite Party No.2 to investigate the problem in the said machine but after thorough checking they could not identify the defects and went back with the remark 'machine requires further check up.'  Again on 18.09.2012 technician from the Opposite Party No.2 came to the residence of the Complainant and examine the said machine.  In their report the technician has observed that the remote kit, display board assembly, temperature sensor and coil sensor are defective.  Thereafter, the Petitioner wrote a letter to Opposite Party No.1 on 22.09.2012 for relacing the said machine with a new one.  But, it yielded no result.  Thereafter, on 07.11.2012 the Complainant through her Advocate issued a notice upon the Opposite Party No.1 clearly mentioning that the machine is defective one and is started giving trouble right from the beginning and as such, she requested to replace the defective equipments.  Subsequently, on 11.12.2012 the Opposite Party No2 sent technician to identify the defects but the Complainant did not allow and refused to put her signature.

            In their reply all the three Opposite Parties before the Ld. DCDRF has submitted that they are liable only to repair the Subject Unit of the Complainant and not to replace the same unless the same suffers from manufacturing defect.  What we find in the report of the technicians of Opposite Party No.2 that there were several defects in the machine and in spite of visit of two occasions by the technician the same could not be removed.  If we have a look to the Inspection Report dated 18.09.2012 it would reveal that there were defects in Remote Kit, Display Board Assembly, Temperature Sensor and Coil Sensor.  Even assuming that an attempt was made on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 to remove such defects on 11.12.2012 but still it lacks proper initiative in as much as inspection report does not show that the technician went to the house of the Complainant with spare parts for removing the defects like temperature sensor and coil sensor..