24.04.2015

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Appeal has been preferred by the OP Nos. 2 & 3 against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia, in C.F.Case No. CC/11/53, directing the Ops to refund jointly and severally to the Complainant/Respondent Rs.24,000/- being the purchase-price of the Air-Conditioner machine concerned and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month, failing which interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount shall be payable by the Ops for the entire period of default in payment.

          The facts, which are relevant for adjudication of the instant case, are, in short, that the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 purchased from the OP No. 1/Respondent No. 2, being the authorized dealer of OP No. 2/Appellant No. 1, a split Air-Conditioner of Godrej make and Model No. being GSC18FA under Tax Invoice No. RTL/3559/09-10 dated 30.4.2009 for a consideration of Rs. 23,001/- with warranty period of the said machine being one year from the date of purchase, as averred in the Petition of Complaint.  After installation, the said machine started mal-functioning, as alleged, and accordingly, the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 lodged on 17.4.2010 a complaint in writing, with special reference to ‘low cooling effect’, with the OP No. 1/Respondent No. 2, which was further reminded by a reminder- letter dated 17.5.2010 following which the OP No. 2/Appellant No. 1 assured the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 by a reply dated 7.6.2010 of resolving the grievance of the Complainant/Respondent No. 1, but no effective redressal was done by the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3, despite the defect in the machine being detected within the warranty period, save and except servicing of the said machine on 10.6.2011 and 13.6.2011.  Then the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 moved the Ld. District Forum for remedy, which passed the impugned judgment and order in the aforesaid manner.  Aggrieved by such order the OP Nos. 2 & 3 have preferred the instant Appeal.

          Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3 submits that after purchase of the Air-Conditioner in question due post-purchase service was provided to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant within the warranty period and even after expiry of the warranty period, as is evident from the Service Reports dated 10.6.2011 and 13.6.2011 bearing the signatures of the Respondent No. 1/Complainant as available on records, and that at the time of such servicing it was reported by the technical person concerned that the inadequacy of sealing of doors of the room concerned was responsible for ‘low cooling effect’ as complained of by the Respondent No. 1/Complainant, and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3.

          It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the terms and conditions of the warranty provide for only servicing, which was done whenever called for, as mentioned hereinbefore, but the terms and conditions of the warranty do not provide for replacement of the Air-Conditioner as a whole by a new one or refund of the value of the said machine as claimed by the Respondent No. 1/ Complainant.

          The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in this view of the case, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, the same being bad in law and passed without appreciating the terms and conditions of the warranty accompanying the said transaction. 

         On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1/Complainant submits that the Ld. District Forum rightly passed the order on proper appreciation of the evidence on records showing that the service of repairing of the Air-Conditioner was provided by the Appellants/ OP Nos. 2 & 3 thereby pointing to the inherent defects in the said Air-Conditioner.

         The Ld. Advocate also submits that the complaint about the defects in the said machine was duly alleged within the warranty period, but the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3 arranged for servicing the same late to get the warranty period expired and thus to escape from the liability of deficiency in service on their part.

        The Ld. Advocate further submits that the excuse of inadequacy of the sealing of the doors of the room concerned, as the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3 have resorted to, is not tenable in view of the fact that another A.C.machine of the same type was functioning well in another room with the door-closing arrangement similar to that of the room which concerns with the Air-condition machine in dispute.

        The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the submission so advanced, the instant Appeal should be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order should be sustained.

          None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 1 on the date of final hearing.  However, the case is being proceeded with on the basis of the Written Version filed by the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 1 before the Ld. District Forum as available on records.

         We have heard both the sides, perused the materials on records and considered their respective submissions.

      Materials on records, particularly the Written Version filed by the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3, as available on records, clearly demonstrate that the Air-Conditioner machine in question was repaired on 10.6.2011 and 13.6.2011 even after warranty period which was for one year from the date of purchase as mentioned in the Petition of Complaint.

        The acts of repeated repairing of the A.C.machine, as admitted by the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3 in the said Written Version and as revealed from the materials on records, clearly indicate that the machine was not free from defects from the date of purchase, and that in selling such defective machine to the Respondent No. 1/ Complainant, lies the deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3, for which the Appellants/Ops cannot escape their liability.

         In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence on records we are convinced that the Appellants/OP Nos. 2 & 3 had deficiency in service on their part.  In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part.  Accordingly, we intend to modify the impugned judgment and order as under:

        The amount of refund as directed by the Ld. District Forum is modified to Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 24,000/-, which, in our opinion, is just and proper in view of the Air-Conditioner machine having been used by the Respondent No. 1/Complainant for some period, may it be for a short period.  The other directions in the impugned judgment and order shall remain unaltered.     

           The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent above.  No order as to costs.