Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This is an Appeal preferred by M/s Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd. against the Order dated 07-12-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in CC No. 255/2014, whereof the complaint case has been allowed.
Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant, is that, the AC Machine, that he purchased from the OP No. 1 on 21-05-2013 started malfunctioning within few weeks of its installation, which defeated the very purpose of having the same at a considerable cost. Repeated repairing of the same since failed to bring the AC Machine back to normalcy, the complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum.
By submitting a WV, it is stated by the OP No. 2 that whenever the Complainant lodged complaint, the same was immediately attended to and the problems were fixed to the entire satisfaction of the customer. According to this OP, it discharged all its contractual obligations under the warranty and therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 were heard at length and documents on record carefully gone through. Despite due service of notice, the Respondent No. 2 did not turn up.
On carefully scrutiny of the impugned order we find that the Ld. District Forum has passed a very reasoned order, where all the pertinent issues raised from the side of the Appellant has been explicitly explained.
It appears that the subject AC machine is quite defect-prone; otherwise, complaint of similar nature (poor cooling effect) would not surface every now and then. It is though claimed by the Appellant that they resolved the complaints every time they received complaint from the Respondent No. 1, for some obscure reasons, the concerned job sheets have not been furnished by it. That apart, when similar problem crops up at short intervals, that surely not only undermines the efficacy of servicing, but also leaves enough indication as to the manufacturing defect of the same.
The AC machine, as it appears, was examined by an expert, who too reported that it was a below par product which was raddled with several defects. Notwithstanding the Appellant termed the report as motivated and sought to pick hole into the report of the expert concerned from different angles, we feel such technical issues ought to be raised before the Expert concerned and get it clarified. Significantly, as it appears from the impugned order, when the Ld. District Forum accepted the said report, the Appellant remained silent. Not only that, the Appellant made no such prayer to cross-examine the expert concerned before the Ld. District Forum and although the Ld. District Forum mentioned this aspect in its impugned order, the Appellant has completely sidestepped this issue.
Since the Appellant woke up from its slumber after 3 months, the Ld. District Forum quite predictably shrugged off the allegations hurled against the Expert concerned by the Appellant. We too find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order on the basis of such wild allegations from the side of the Appellant.
The unpleasant truth is that, the AC machine started malfunctioning even before one month since installation of the same and despite repeated repairing, Appellants miserably failed to make it defect free. It is the bounden responsibility of any manufacturer to adhere to stringent quality checking norms before sending it to the market. It is their responsibility to ensure that customers always get the true value of their hard-earned money. Appellant cannot be oblivious of its sacrosanct responsibility to trade only defect free product to customers. It is a complete misnomer on the part of the Appellant to think that by virtue of one sided warranty clauses, they enjoy complete immunity over selling of defective products.
The Appeal is bereft of any merit and thus, fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
