DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 4_ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING : 6.1.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 24.5.2018
Present : President :
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Sukamal Dutta, son of Sri Chandan Dutta, O/5A, Plot no.243, Flat no.11A, 2nd Floor, Bankim Mukherjee Road, P.S New Alipore, Kolkata -53.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. 102, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S Behala, Kolkata -34.
2. Exclusive Samsung Service Centre, Vision Cool Services,2, New Taratala Road, P.S Taratala, Kolkata – 88.
3. Samsung Electronics India Ltd. 2nd,3rd and 4th floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector No.43, Gurgaon-1220002.
4. Samsung Electronics India Ltd. at Pressman House, 2nd Floor, 10A, Lee Road, Kolkata – 20.
5. Bajaj Finserv Ltd. 1201, 12th floor, Infinity Benchmark, Plot-G-1, EP & GP, Sector-5, Salt Lake, Kolkata -91 and also at 2nd floor, 112A, Narayani Complex, RRashbehari Avenue, Near Lake Mall, HDFC Bank Ltd. Kolkata – 29.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Subrata Sarker, Member
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that he purchased one 1.5 ton Air Conditioner of Samsung Make Model no. AR18HV5NBWKXNA for his residence from the O.P-1 at a price of Rs.45000/- . The complainant submitted that down payment of Rs.10,000/- was accepted by the O.P-1 on 12.4.2014 and thereafter the rest amount was paid in 14 installment. The machine was installed on 16.4.2014 and , for which the agent of the O.P charged Rs.8690/-. The positive case of the complainant is that from the date one the new Air Conditioning machine started giving problem and the complainant lodged complaint to the Customer Care Department and at least seven to eight complaints were lodged by the complainant for non working, malfunctioning of the Air Conditioning machine with a period of first eight months. The attending technician used to tell the complainant that due to some inherent manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioning machine the same cannot work with 100% efficiency . It is submitted by the complainant that during scorching summer in 2014 the complainant and his family had to spend a good number of sleepless nights due to hot weather and non-functioning of the Air Conditioning machine and supply of any electronic gadget with inherent manufacturing defect as confirmed by the attending technicians of the O.Ps amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, this case praying to replace the machine or to refund the price already paid to the O.Ps , compensation of Rs.1 lac and cost etc.
O.P nos. 1 to 4 did not appear to contest the case and the case is declared exparte against them.
O.P-5 files written version to contest the case and denied all the allegations leveled against him ,contending inter alia that O.P-5 is not an agent of O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 and thus O.P-5 being financier is not at all responsible or liable for vicarious liability.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.P nos. 1 to 4 guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT
Complainant and O.P-5 have filed their evidences on affidavit and the same are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 and 2:-
In the instant case it stands established that the technician of the O.P company used to tell the complainant that due to inherent manufacturing defect in the Air Condition machine the same cannot work with 100% efficiency. So, from the verdict of the technician ,we are of the opinion that the said machine is defective from the date of its purchase.
Now question arises whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation . We are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get compensation if it is found that the complainant is being harassed due to deliberate laches on the part of the O.Ps. The undisputed fact of the case is that after purchasing of the machine the same started giving problem and complainant lodged complaint to the O.Ps 7 -8 times within a period of first 8 months. The complainant has certainly undergone mental distress and physical harassment and he has to suffer during the scratching summer for which O.Ps have to compensate the complainant and the sluggishness in the matter of taking action is a kind of deficiency on the part of the O.Ps and for this act of deficiency the O.Ps have to pay compensation to the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.P nos. 1 to 4 with cost of Rs.5000/- and dismissed against the O.P-5 on contest.
The O.P nos. 1 to 4 are directed to replace the existing air condition machine of the complainant by a new one of same model free from all defect with sufficient warranty period and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant within a month of this order. In the event ,the O.P nos. 1 to 4 failed to replace the air condition machine with a new one , they are directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant including the cost of materials for installation with 9% interest from the date of installation till its realization within the same period.
At the same time it is directed to the complainant to hand over the old existing air condition machine to the O.Ps in case of replacement of the same by a new one or refund of the money and O.Ps have to bear the cost for taking out the machine from the house of the complainant.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
