Negligent AC Servicing By Deputed Engineer, Chandigarh District Commission Directs Holds Urban Clap Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

Mr. Vikrant Goyal (“Complainant”) approached Urban Clap (“Company”) for the maintenance/service of his Daikin 1.5 split air conditioner. The Company sent a service engineer to the Complainant's house. Subsequently, the Complainant made a payment of ₹ 3,548/- to the Company for a gas leakage repair.

But on the very next day, the AC encountered further issues. The same engineer attended to the subsequent complaint dismantled the internal unit, and took it for repair. Upon its return, the AC stopped working altogether. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Company but didn't receive a satisfactory reply. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”), against the Company for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

In response, the Company disputed the consumer complaint, claiming that it operates as a managed marketplace for home services, serving as an intermediary connecting users with independent third-party service providers. The Company challenged the maintainability of the complaint asserting that as a facilitator, it is not directly responsible for the alleged service issues. The Company denied causing damage to the internal unit and challenged the merits of the Complainant's case, denying the alleged cause of action.

Observations by the Commission:

Referring to the argument of the Company that it is merely a facilitator and intermediary, the District Commission noted that the service engineer in question was indeed deputed by the Company, and the Company directly accepted the service charges of ₹ 3,548/- from the Complainant. Further, the District Commission noted that after the service engineer sent by the Company for the second time negligently dismantled the unit, the Complainant had to expend an additional amount of Rs. 9,608/- for corrective services. Therefore, the District Commission held that the Company cannot evade responsibility for the service performed by the service engineer.

In light of these considerations, the District Commission held the Company liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the Company was directed to pay the amount of ₹ 3,548/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its payment by him. Further, the District Commission directed the Company to pay ₹ 5,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and ₹ 3,000/- for the litigation costs.

Case Title: Vikrant Goyal vs Urban Clap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case No.: CC/489/2020

Advocate for the Complainant: None

Advocate for the Respondent: Jasdeep Singh

Click Hereto Read/Download Order