Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 03.05.2018
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to replace the aforesaid Air Conditioner.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) on account of deficiency in service on the part of the company.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased an air conditioner being OG 2 Ton 24 FTTA and Stabilizer VND 500 on 26.05.2015 from opposite party no. 1. After the purchase and installation of the aforesaid air conditioner, it immediately became defective and thereafter a mechanic came to repair the aforesaid air conditioner on 16.06.2015 but he failed to do so. Thereafter on 21.06.2015 the complainant again reported this fact to opposite parties but despite repeated request no any response has been received from opposite parties and as such the complainant has been unable to use the aforesaid air conditioner since the date of purchase.
From bare perusal of mail dated 23.06.2015 it is crystal clear that since the date of installing, the air conditioner failed to even cool 400 Sq. Ft. room even after running of 1 hr. Theafter service center changed the gas but despite that the air conditioner could not work.
It appears from the record that on the application of the complainant, opposite party no. 3 was added as party vide order dated 25.11.2015 and thereafter notice was sent to him. The Tamila on opposite party no. 3 was declared valid vide order dated 29.11.2016. Opposite party no. 1 has appeared by filing vakalatmana but he has not filed written statement rather he has filed notes of arguments in which it is stated that “the capacity of cooling of air conditioner is beyond the parameter of area so reason being the air conditioner is not cooling properly.”
It has been stated by opposite party no. 3 that the opposite party – 2 has always supported the complainant.
On behalf of complainant reply of written statement ( written argument) filed by opposite party has been filed denying the allegation of opposite party. It has been stated that the correct size of room where the cir conditioner has been installed is 200 Sq. Ft. and not 400 Sq. Ft. or 500 Sq. Ft. as asserted by the opposite party.
On behalf of opposite party written statement has been filed stating therein that the technical issue reported by the complainant was attended by opposite party no. 2 and it was redressed. It has been stated that size of the two rooms are 400 Sq. Ft. which is beyond the capacity of the air conditioner.
It has been further stated that there is no manufacturing defect.
Heard and perused the record.
We have taken into the consideration the written statement of the opposite party in the interest of justice although they were debarred from filing written statement.
The complainant has asserted that the length of room is about 200 Sq. Ft. and not 550 Sq. Ft. or 400 Sq. Ft. It has been specifically asserted by the complainant that the area of the room where the defective product has been installed is only 200 Sq. Ft.
From bare perusal of the counter affidavit, written argument it is crystal clear that since the date of installing the air conditioner was defective. This is also clear from the service report of the technician contained in annexure – 2 and 3 which is the documents of opposite party and not the complainant.
In our opinion the assertion of the opposite party that the two rooms of the complainant having area of 400 Sq. Ft. or 550 Sq. Ft. are beyond the capacity of air conditioner while the assertion of the complainant that the defective air conditioner has been installed in 1 room having area of 200 Sq. Ft. has not been denied. The very fact that after immediate installing of the air conditioner, mechanic/ engineer visited several times goes to show that the air conditioner was defective since the date of purchase. Even the documents of opposite party whichhas been annexed as annexure shows that there were multiple defects in the air conditioner due to which it was not able to function properly.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that by installing defective air conditioner and not redressing the grievance of the complainant the opposite parties have committed gross deficiency.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we direct the opposite party to replace the air conditioner within the period of two month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
Complainant is also directed to hand over the defective air conditioner to the opposite parties at the time of replacement of the aforesaid air conditioner if it is in the custody of the complainant.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two month.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
