DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _81_ OF ___2018_
DATE OF FILING : 9.7.2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 06.03.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Sudhamayee Das, wife of Apurba Das, Vill. Paik Para, P.O Madarat, P.S Baruipur, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743610.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Fair Deal International, 446, Raja Subodh Chandra Mallick Road, Garia Bazar Kanungo Park, Garia, Kolkata-84.
2. The Manager, Fair Deal International, Padmapukur More, P.S Baruipur, Kolkata-`144.
` 3. South Point Service, Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited. Authorised Service Provider of Vill. Khasmullick Jogibattala, P.O Dakshin Gobindapur, P.O Baruipur, Kolkata- 145.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member
The door of this Forum has been knocked by the complainant for redressal arising out of the consumer dispute as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In pith and substance, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the complainant had purchased one A/C machine of Hitachi made vide model No.ES1318EAEA from Fairdeal International showroom at Padmapukur More, Baruipur, Kolkata 700144 at a total price of Rs. 37,500/- on 25.01.2018 with one year warranty for the whole parts and five years guarantee for the compressor and the AC machine has been installed on 07.02.2018.
But from the very beginning the said A/C machine got some problem as it was not cooling properly.
On 16.04.2018 the complainant lodged a complaint before the Opposite Party No. 2 and wanted to know the service centre of the Hitachi Company, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not provide the same.
On 30.04.2019 two service men visited the complainant’s house for servicing the A/C machine, but they did not solve the problem of the same.
Thereafter the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 repeatedly assured the complainant to sent their service man to defect free of the said A/C machine , but they did not do so. The complainant several times informed regarding the said A/C machine by letters to the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3, but the Opposite Parties did not give any reply to the complainant.
Hence, the complainant filed this instant complaint for getting relief as prayed for.
Issue notices upon the Opposite Parties.
Resisting the complaint the Opposite Parties filed separate written version denying contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint stating inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer and has no locus standi to file the complaint and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
In the written version, the Opposite Party No. 1, stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 Fairdeal International is not a company. It is running and administering by different partners at different places, who are not involved with each other, not even with the shop namely “Fairdeal International” at padmapukur more, P.S. – Baruipur, Kol – 144. The complainant never purchased any article from the Opposite Party No. 1 so that the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for any warranty or guarantee of any article. And only for harassment the complainant filed this instant case and therefore, the instant case should be liable to be dropped.
In the written version the Opposite Party No.2 stated that manager is mere an official post, so that as a manager he is not personally liable for providing any guarantee of any article. If the complainant purchase any article from any shop, then proprietor of the shop is liable. Due to mis - concept the complainant filed this instant complain against the manager. The invoice and challan that provides warranty and servicing is the duty of the manufacturer. The manager of the shop is not liable for the same.
Except these the Opposite Party No.2 denied all the allegation made by the complainant against him and therefore prayed to drop the case.
In the written version the Opposite Party No. 3 denied all the allegations contained in the complaint.
The specific case, as stated by the Opposite Party no.3, in terse, is that, after getting complain of the said A/C machine from the complainant the Opposite Party No. 3 sent their engineer to the complainant’s house and inspected the product and found some problem with the PCB, and the Engineer of the Opposite Party No. 3 suggested the complainant to replace the PCB on FOC basis as per the warranty policy and also arranged the PCB as per requirement and informed the complainant to replace the same, but the complainant did not give access to replace the PCB and denied the service of the Opposite Party no.3.
However, the Opposite Party No. 3 is still ready to give necessary repairs and maintenance on FOC basis as per the warranty policy.
POINTS FOR DECISION:-
The point for determination in the instant case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material evidences on record.
DECISION WITH REASONS:-
At the time of argument the complainant and the Opposite Parties have filed affidavit –in- chief, BNA, and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their claim.
All points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We have carefully considered the submissions made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
On overall evaluation of the case record and critical appreciation of the material evidences, it is evident that, the complainant had purchase one A/C machine vide model No.ES1318EAEA from Fairdeal International showroom at, Padma pukur More, Baruipur, Kolkata- 700144 at a total price of Rs. 37,500/- on 25.01.2018 with one year warranty for the whole parts and five years guarantee for the compressor.
The record reveals that, the men of the Opposite Party No.3 sent their service man to solve the problem of the said A/C machine, but they failed to do so. It is clearly evident that the A/C machine is defective which the Opposite Party No.3 failed to repair.
Manifestly, the complainant alleged that, the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 repeatedly assured the complainant to send their service man to solve the problem, but they failed to do the same which clearly indicates that the machine is defective and is beyond repairable.
Any how, the facts remains that the Opposite Party No. 3 sent their Engineer to defect free the said A/C machine and informed the complainant to replace the PCB on FOC basis, any how they failed to do the same, it proves that the aforesaid machine has some problem within the warranty period for which the Opposite Party No.3 is obliged to do. So, the Opposite Party No. 3 is still liable to defect free the said A/C machine with functioning condition.
Therefore, from the above discussion made above, it is concluded that the entire conduct of the Opposite Parties are illegal, unwarranted and arbitrary in nature which tantamount to deficiency in service on their part within the perview of section 2(1)(g) of C.P. Act 1986 and in fact by adopting such procedure the OPs. committed unfair trade practice u/s 2(1)(r) of C.P. Act 1986.
Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief from the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.
From perusal of the record and documents we inclined to hold that the complainant did not purchase the said A/C machine or any article from the Opposite Party No. 1. So, the Opposite Party No. 1 is not liable and held responsible for the claim raised by the complainant.
Accordingly, we do not pass any order against the Opposite Party No.1.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
ORDER
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 with cost of Rs.5,000/- each.
That the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 jointly and severally directed to replace the PCB on FOC basis of the defective A/C machine with new warranty within one month from the date of this order.
If the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 jointly and severally did not comply the aforesaid order ,then they have to replace the new A/C machine with new warranty within one month from the date of this order.
That the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 jointly and severally also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-to the complainant within one month from this order for harassment and mental agony of the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/-each for litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of non compliance of this order the complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with the provisions of law.
Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost, when applied for.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
.
