Order No. 23. Dt. 13.12.2018.
Sri Subhabrata Chaudhuri, President.
The fact of the case, in brief, is that one Sourav Mittal, complainant purchased a 1.5 ton Air-conditioner made of Panasonic being model No. CSXC18NKY and CUYC18NKY from Prapti Electronics, Sevoke Road, Siliguri on 12.06.2012 valued Rs. 24454.15/- with vat@ 14.05% amounting Rs. 3545.85/- totaling a sum of Rs. 28000/- (Twenty eight thousand only) on receiving tax in voice to that effect. After purchase of the same complainant started to use that air-conditioner and thereafter on 11.09.2015 complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs via its helpline No. 1800 103 1333 for repairing of the aforesaid air-conditioner and same was registered as a complaint being No. R110915386649 dtd 11.09.2015. Accordingly on 12.09.2015 technicians of OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant and tried to repair the same but ultimately they could not
Conti…..P/2
-2-
and thereby finally took the PCP, Fan motor, Sensor and cover of the said air conditioner for testing the same with the assurance that they would repair and bring back those with the proper and genuine report by the very next day. Since then neither the OPs nor their technicians in gross violation of their promise and assurance never reverted back nor provided any feedback to the complainant thus on 29.09.2015 complainant again called the OPs on its National Customer Care and the OPs without stating any reason informed the complainant that his complaint dtd. 11.09.2015 has been cancelled and he has to lodged fresh complaint regarding the same, so another complainant was lodged being complaint No. R290915468828 dtd 29.09.2015. Thereafter, as the air conditioner was not getting repaired it that state complainant compel to ask the OPs on very many dates about the matter but ultimately that was not repair and the OPs ventilated their regrets for the inconvenience caused and the OPs via e-mail dtd 09.10.2015, 13.10.2015, 16.10.2015, 21.10.2015 and 23.10.2015 used to give vague assurance to the complainant that “the part required for repair of the aforesaid air conditioner is under process” and “that they are taking all possible measures to ensure that the repair of the complainant’s product will accomplished at the earliest”. In this respect of repair OPs send e-mail on 25.10.2015 and on 27.10.2015 also. Complainant on 15.03.2016 through his Ld advocate requested the OPs to return back the aforesaid parts of the said air-conditioner which were taken by the employees of the OP No.1 from the house of the complainant but even after receipt of the said notice on 16.03.2016 the OPs neither returned the said parts nor repair the air conditioner by which complainant faced financial loss and lot of harassment as a Consumer due to illegal activities of the OPs. Hence this case has been initiated by the complainant where complainant has prayed for repair of air conditioner by the OPs at their own cost and for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by OP Nos. 1 & 2 for mental harassment and agony as well as Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service and another Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.
The OP No.1 has been contesting the case by filing written version while the case has been running ex-parte against OP No.2. In the written version the matter of non-function of the air conditioner has been admitted but liability has been fixed there upon OP No.2, Panasonic India
Conti…..P/3
-3-
Pvt. Ltd. by saying that this OP No.2 could not provide the PCP so the air-condition machine was not repaired. OP No.2 files some documents as Annexure-A and Annexure-B.
The complainant filed the documents in support of his case in photo copies and some original documents are also produced which include tax in voice issued by Prapti Electronics, Siliguri dtd 12.06.2012 and advocate letters copy postal receipt etc. Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and finally written notes on argument is also filed by the complainant. OP No.1 also filed examination-in-chief in writing by way of affidavit and filed their written argument also.
Under such circumstance of the case the following points are fixed for determination:
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Has there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs committed against the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1, 2 & 3
All the three points are taken up together for consideration for avoiding repetition for the sake of convenience of discussion.
Complainant’s claim is that he could not get desirable service of the air-conditioner and even after fulfilling all formalities for its repair on defect of the same for getting proper service he left no stone unturned and handed over the main components of the air-conditioner to the OPs who has taken it from his residential address but those ultimately were not returned by them even after causing mental agony and harassment to that effect. We have gone through the paper and documents as filed by the complainant and the admitted fact is that as revealed there from that the air-conditioner started non functioning but the same was not repaired by the authorized service centre even the components handed over to the OPs have not yet been returned. The annexures as produced by the OPs are of no use. It is palpably clear that the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the ‘term’ of Consumer Protection Act. 1986. As regards deficiency in service from the documents of the complainants there is no doubt in it that complainant in respect of repair of the damaged air-conditioner suffered a lot by the OPs or by the conduct of the OPs. The
Conti…..P/4
-4-
cause of action of this case has been rightly arisen on 11.09.2015 and thereafter on very many dates as mentioned above while the complainant time and again approached the OPs for repair of the air-conditioner. The case has been filed within statutory period of limitation and the case is not hit by either territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus after considering all aspects we are of the view that the complainant has been able to prove his case and this is a fit case where award should be given in favour of the complainant. All the points are thus decided in favour of the complainant. Proper fees paid.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the instant consumer case being No. 77 of 2016 be and same is allowed in part against OP Nos.1 & 2 respectively on contest and on ex-parte with cost. The OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed jointly first to repair the said air-conditioner at their own cost up to satisfaction of the complainant and to hand over the same in that condition to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise to make payment of Rs. 28,000/- (twenty eight thousand only) which is the purchase value of the air-conditioner in question within the time framed above. Both the OPs are also directed severally and jointly to pay a some of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand only) for mental harassment and agony to the complainant as well as to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) for negligence and deficiency in service, in total Rs. 43,000/-(forty three thousand only) within 30 days from this date of order, if the air-conditioner is not handed over in that condition as mentioned in the meantime within 30 days to the complainant. If the air-conditioner is handed over in said condition of this order to the complainant of the satisfaction of the complainant then OPs are to pay Rs. 15,000/-(fifteen thousand only). In all the cases OPs are directed to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum after expiry of the period of stipulated 30 days till its full realization to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand only) both jointly and severally to the complainant within the mentioned period of 30 days to the complainant as cost of litigation otherwise the complainant shall be at liberty to put the decree in execution.
Let a copy of this order be given to the petitioner/complainant and the OP No.1 free of cost and to OP No.2 by registered post with A/D.
