Adv. For the Complainant  : -  self

        Adv. For the OPS                 :-   No

        Date  of filing of the Case  :- 28.07.2023

        Date of Order                       :-28.02.2024

 JUDGMENT

Smt. Jyotsna Rani Mishra , Member

Fact of the case-

        Complainant has purchased Godrej split AC from the OP3 ( Proprietor, Maxcom)  vide invoice no. 199 dt 14.04.2023 for a consideration of Rs.31500/- and same has been installed by OP1 ( Proprietor  Jagannath service, authorized Godrej appliances  service on payment of Rs. 1178/- which is warranted for a period of one year warranty on parts and 10 years warranty on compressor .

-2-

            That from the beginning it gives certain problems like no colling in AC. After running for half an hour the compressor is stopped, and irregular sound in the fan. So complainant lodge several complaint before OP. Service request no. W 0607946832, W0905964490 through phone and through E-mail and also several complaints through OP3.

          That, OP1 tried his best but unable to remove the defects nor has repaired and lastly head of OP1 has told that there is manufacturing defects in the appliance and same is not repairable.

OP2 under takes to repair with a defect free one, they have not yet taken and step for replacement or refund pf consideration amount of AC till date.

From the very beginning of the purchase of the AC moving to the service centre for several time itself disclose that there is inherent defects in the AC which is not repairable.

Due to the inability of the OP1 the complainant is unable use the AC in the high summer. So the OPS are liable for the same jointly and severally.

To substantiate his case the complainant relies on following document-

1. Purchase invoice.
2. Warranty Card

Having gone through the complainant it’s accompanied documents and on hearing the complainant, prima facie it seemed to be genuine case hence admitted and notice to the OPs were served and in response to the notice OPS did not appeared before commission, sufficient time has been given but Ops could not turn up and filed their written version within statutory period and fails to proves his credential as such the OP set exparte on dt.09.11.2023.

     So due to the deceptive trade practice and unfair trade practice of the OPS amounts to deficiency in service which create sustained loss and mental agony to

-3-

 the complainant. As such I considered the case with following direction. Hence order.

ORDER

The Ops are directed to refund Rs.32678/-of consideration amount and installation charges with 6% interest.

   I further directed to pay a sum of 20,000/- jointly and severally towards mental agony and pay Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses within one month from the dt of order.

     Failing which the entire amount shall be paid by the Ops with 12% interest per annum from the dt of filing of case till realization.

No awards as to cost.

PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TO-DAY  28^th  day of  February‘ 2024.