BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 7^th January 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

   SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G             : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.172/2014

(Admitted on 20.05.2014)

Mr. Raghava D,

Aged about 40 years,

S/o Rama Mulya D,

R/at 8^th Block,

Chokkabettu, Surathkal,

Near Railway Over Bridge,

Surathkal, Mangalore.

                                                        ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri AN)

VERSUS

1. Manager,

    Express Cool (R)

    Air Condition,

    And Refrigerator system,

    Little Tower No.7, 2^nd Floor,

    Near Mallikatta Circle,

    Opp: Kadri ARC, Kadri,

    Mangalore.

2. Manager,

    M/s Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt Ltd.,

    Prestige Emerald, 6^th Floor,

    Muncipal No.2, Madras Bank Road,

    (Lavelle Road) Bangalore  560 001.

     Karnataka.

                                                                    ….......OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite parties No.1: Sri TP)

(Opposite parties No.2: Ex parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the same complainant against same opposite parties alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant claim the purchase of an High wall split AC 0.80 ton with R22 Gas from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2 for Rs.29,500/ in cash in addition to pay Rs.500/ towards copper appliance under receipt No.298 dated 24.3.2014.  On 20.3.2014 at the insistence of opposite party No.2 complainant kept an electrician but personnel of opposite partyNo.2 came late in the afternoon and directly connected the AC to electric connection which is dangerous.  They fixed the stabilizer outside the house even though space is available inside given scope for tampering and theft though complainant waited for 2 days for his arrival.  On 2^nd  day personnel came late in night but complainant asked them to come next day to set things right but did not come as promised nor was he receiving any calls made. Though it is endorsed in the broacher AC is made in Japan, the AC bears marking Made in Thailand.  The specific number has been changed in the bill, and the number contained in the bill and on the AC are with two different numbers and also another deficiency in service and breach of contract, contractual to the contract condition there is need for installation charges.  Ever since the installation of the AC is not in a working condition due to defective AC as well as defective installation.  The complainant is apprehending of future service provided by opposite party contending deficiency in service and seeking refund of the amount paid by complainant to the AC.   Notice was sent to opposite party as such seeks the relief mentioned in the complaint. 

II.     Opposite party No.1 in the written version denied the purchase of the AC in question by paying total sum of Rs.30,000/  mentioned in the complaint and other allegations made in the complaint specifically are denied.  On 19.3.2014 the complainant approached opposite party as to need for an AC the details were furnished to complainant by opposite party.  The complainant opted to make his own arrangement for electrician.  The complainant’s wife when men of opposite party went to house of complainant for installation of absence of electrician he has asked to come next day. On next day when technician visited complainant’s wife requested to install the stabilizer outside the house.  On 24.3.2014 when technician visited again the complainant’s wife told him her husband is not in a house and paid Rs.500/ and informed her husband will approach the shop and pay the balance of Rs.29,000/ out of the bill amount of Rs. 29,500/ receipt was issued for the said amount of Rs. 500/ the balance amount is still due.  The complainant failed to make balance payment despite demand.  As to the complainants that the AC is manufactured at Thailand the manufacture of AC was at Japan and they were only assembled at Thailand.  The complainant threatened opposite party No.1 in creating false story without making any payment not entitled of any payment there is no deficiency in service hence seeks dismissal.

2.     In support of the above complainant Mr. Raghava D filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C8 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. M Vijay (RW1) Proprietor, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

               Point No. (i): Affirmative

              Point No. (ii): Negative

              Point No.(iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):   The complainant is purchaser of the split AC from opposite party No.1 and there the complainant one consumer and the opposite parties are service provider is admitted.  The complainant raised numerous issues as to the nature of service namely not fixing the AC as desired by complainant and fixing the stabilizer outside the house and that contrary to the representation of opposite party No.1 that AC is manufactured at Japan the one supplied to him is stamped as manufactured at Thailand which was however disputed by opposite party.  Hence there is dispute between complainant and opposite parties.   Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No.(ii): One of the grounds urged by complainant is that there is tampering of the Sl. No of the AC purchased in the tax bill and also in the one supplied to complainant.  Ex.C1 is bill and Ex.C6 the customer copy of the warranty mention the Sl. No I.D 3000561T of which 695 struck and 561 is added.  But Ex.C2 the service report produced mentions Sl. No as ID 3000695T numbers. But it is none of the case of complainant he handed over these documents Ex.C1 & C6 after the purchase/payment of consideration to opposite party No.1 at any point of time.   Hence the claim of complainant that changed Sl. No of the product supplied cannot be accepted.

2.     The other ground urged by complainant is he paid the entire amount in cash to opposite party of the AC and then only bill Ex.C1 is issued.   On the other hand opposite party took stand that complainant promised to make payment at the spot at the time of delivery of AC and that as per Ex.C3 complainant paid only Rs.500/ being part of the sale consideration amount and Rs.29000/  is still outstanding.  Even though complainant’s wife promised that her husband would come to the shop of opposite party No.1 and promised to make payment that payment was not done.  However Ex.C3 the receipt issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.500/ on 24.3.2014 refers to bill no.262 i.e. of Ex.C1 and acknowledges receipt of Rs.500/ and marking were made in the printed form in the respect of full and struck off part payment.  Hence the claim of opposite party No.1 that complainant made part payment of Rs.500/ only towards the AC is unjustified. 

3.     As to the claim of complainant of not fixing the product the spilt AC properly  and that it is not functioning is concerned as rightly pointed out for opposite party the complainant did not produce the electric power consumption bill pertaining to his residence prior to and subsequent to installation of the split AC purchased from opposite party No.1.  In fact the complainant also did not permit the men of opposite party to visit the house of the complainant to verify whether the split AC supplied to complainant is functioning or not to verify manufacturer’s label on AC.  Hence we are of the view that the claim of the complainant that the AC is not working and that there was misrepresentation as to the manufacturer by opposite party to complainant in our considered view is not established.  Hence deficiency of service on the part of opposite party is not established by complainant.  Hence we answer Point.2 in the negative.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                    The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 7^th January 2017)

             MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)         (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum              D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                Additional Bench, Mangalore

              MEMBER

(SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G)                                           

D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore 

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Raghava D

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1:19.03.2014   : Bill

Ex.C2:19.03.2014   : Service Report

Ex.C3:24.03.2014   : Receipt

Ex.C4:19.03.2014   : Warranty Card

Ex.C5:                   : Photos  4 Nos.

Ex.C6:19.03.2014   : Customer registration card

Ex.C7:27.03.2014   : Copy of the legal notice and acknowledgment

Ex.C8:                   : Broachers and user manual

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mr. M Vijay, Proprietor

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 07.01.2017                                    PRESIDENT