DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _151_ OF ___2019_
DATE OF FILING : 30.8.2019 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT :11.3.2020
Present : President :
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Jagadish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT :Mohua Bhattacharjee, wife of Subrata Bhattacharjee of Village Tegharia (opposite Tegharia School), P.O R.K Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 150.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sales Emporium (Garia), 3652, Garia Main Road, Kolkata-84.
2. T.R. Services at Laskarpur, Purbapara, Kolkata-700153.
3. Daikin A.C , Mondal Trading, 80, Mushalman Para Chowhati, Kolkata-149, Branch at Maszid BariRoad, Kamalgagi, Kolkata-103, Branch at Baruipur, Kolkata-144.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member
Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the Complainant contending gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in rendering necessary service towards the Complainant by the Opposite Parties.
In diminutive, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one DAIKIN AC machine of 2.2 ton vide model No.FTKP71TV16(OD) from the Opposite Party No.1on 24.2.2019 vide bill no. / AR No.GS/ AR1819/ 02290.
At the time of installation on 26.02.2019 the men and agents of the Opposite Party No.2 demanded Rs.4,370/- as installation fee. After installation of the said AC machine became defect like cooling and swing problem. The complainant informed the Opposite Party No.2 regarding the aforesaid problem of the defective AC machine. After informing the complain by the complainant the Opposite Party No.2 sent their agent to inspect the AC machine and solved the problem and demanded Rs. 2,875/-.
The complainant being frustrated from using the said AC machine approached before the DAIKIN AC customer care service centre and came to know from the DAIKIN AC customer care that the said AC machine which the complainant purchased is not registered with the DAIKIN company and the said agency whose installed the aforesaid AC machine was not authorized agent of the DAIKIN company.
After knowing all these the complainant try to contacted with the Opposite Party No.1 and2 but they did not pay any heed to it .
Having no other alternative , the complainant filed this case for getting relief as prayed for.
Issued notice upon the Opposite Party.
Despite service of notice, the Opposite Party never appeared before the Forum to contest the case by filling written version and so, the instant case has been heard ex-party against the Opposite Party.
Points for considerations
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 in record.
Decision with reasons
In order to prove his allegation set forth in the complaint, the complainant deposed in this case as sole witness by swearing affidavit and also produced some documents in support of his case.
The main contention of the complainant is that, the complainant purchased one new AC machine from the Opposite Party No.2. and at the time of purchasing the said AC machine the Opposite Party No. 2 assured the complainant that they will install the AC machine free of cost, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not do that and charged Rs.4,370/- for installation charge . Moreover after purchasing of the new AC machine it became defect like cooling and swing problem and the Opposite Party No.2 also charged Rs.2875/- for filling up the gas in the AC machine.
We have carefully considered the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and perused all the material documents on record.
On overall evaluation of the case record and critical appreciation of the material evidences, it is evident that, the complainant purchased one new AC machine of DAIKIN company vide model No.FTKP71TV16(OD) but the same was not functioning properly for which the complainant lodged a complain to the Opposite Party for repairing the said AC machine The Opposite Party No.2 demanded Rs.4,370/- for installation charge and Rs.2875/- for repairing charge.
The record reveals that, after purchasing the new AC machine in spite of committed installation of the AC machine free of cost the Opposite Party charged Rs 4,370/- as installation charges.
The record also reveals that after five days the purchasing of the new AC machine it became defect like cooling and swing problem. After getting complain from the complainant the agent of the Opposite Party came and solved the problem with filled up the gas in the new AC machine and charged Rs.2875/- for that.
Now question is that how the Opposite Party sold a new AC machine without filling gas for cooling , if it is so, why the Opposite Party charged Rs.2875/- for filling up the gas in the new AC machine after purchasing from the 4/5 days . It is nothing but gross unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. So, the Opposite Parties are still liable to replace the defective AC machine by new AC machine with new warranty which the complainant choose to be bought.
Moreover, all the allegations made by the complainant are unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Opposite Party though the Opposite Party got chance to contest and refute by appearing before the Forum. Therefore, there are no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.
Therefore, from the discussions made above, it is concluded that the complainant proved his case and entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
ORDERED
That the present case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party with cost of Rs.10,000/-
That the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective AC machine with a new one of the complainant’s choice to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The Opposite Parties directed to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassing the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order.
The complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse of execution of the order u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
That the present case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party with cost of Rs.10,000/-
That the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective AC machine with a new one of the complainant’s choice to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The Opposite Parties directed to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassing the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order.
The complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse of execution of the order u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986.
