- Sanjib Mukhopadhyay,
‘South Horizon’, Flat-7, Block-B,
108, Raja S.C. Mullick Road,
P.S. Patuli, Kolkata-47. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd.,
52A, Shakespeare Sarani,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17.
- Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd.,
12th Floor, Building No.9,
Tower-A, DLF Cybercity, DLF Phase-3,
Gurgaon, Hariana – 122 022.
- Harmony House (P) Ltd.,
½ & 1/3, Baisnabghata Patuli Township,
P.S. Patuli, Kolkata-94. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 13 Dated 21-08-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had purchased one Daikin A.C. machine from Harmony House i.e. o.p. no.3 on 25.1.13 at a cost of Rs.34,200/- vide annex-A annexed to the petition of complaint.
Thereafter within a period of two months the said A.C. machine started posing problem from the date of purchase and accordingly, complainant lodged a complaint on 22.3.13 to authorized service centre. In response to his complaint the representative of authorized service centre i.e. Daikin Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd. visited the place of the residence of 29.3.13 and the technician of o.p. company opined that the compressor of the said machine needs to be changed.
Thereafter on 7.4.13 representative of service centre came at the house of the complainant and tried to replace the compressor.
Upon enquiry the complainant had ascertained that the compressor which was being trying to be replaced as a second hand compressor which is evident from the service report dt.7.4.13 vide annex-E annexed with the complaint petition by complainant which was duly signed by complainant and the representative of the service centre. Thereafter on 9.4.13 complainant wrote a letter to the M.D. of the service centre stating in details the harassment faced by complainant since purchase of the said A.C. machine. Thereafter on 16.4.13 one Mr. Avik Roy, representative of Kolkata office of o.p. promised to replace the out door unit of the A.C. machine. Thereafter on 25.4.13 and 7.5.13 one Mr. Roy of o.p. service centre Company promised through e-mail to refund the entire amount of the A.C. machine which had incurred by complainant vide annex-O annexed with the petition of complaint by complainant shortly. But after waiting a month or so o.p. company have failed to refund the amount which has been incurred by complainant to purchase the A.C. machine.
O.p. appeared in the case by filing w/v had interalia stated that complainant has not taken step for testing the goods in question by appropriate laboratory. On the basis of that o.p. denied the entire allegation made by complainant in the instant case and submitted that the instant case is liable to be dismissed since complainant has not made out prima facie case.
Decision with reasons:
After perusal of the entire materials on record and on careful scrutiny of the same it appears that representative of the service centre who had declined that the compressor machine was second hand which was being installed replacing the old one on receipt of complaint by complainant. Besides the said remarks vide annex-E annexed to the petition of complaint by complainant bears signature of the engineer of the service centre as well as the signature of the customer. So we are not in a position to hold that it is a fault of complainant to test the machine in question by appropriate laboratory when the aforesaid document has been annexed by complainant. Needles to mention that the engineer of the service centre must be considered no less than the competent personnel of the appropriate laboratory in respect of the particular machine for which the registered authorized service centre is there. Hence such allegation by o.p. is not sustainable.
In view of the discussions as aforesaid, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has substantiated and proved his case in respect of the sufficient deficiency which has been rendered by concerned o.ps. in respect of the A.C. machine in question and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.(a) and (b) and without cost against o.p. no.(c). O.p. nos.(a) and (b) are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.34,200/- (Rupees thirty four thousand two hundred) only in respect of the cost of the A.C. machine in question which has been deposited by complainant at the time of purchase to o.p. no.(c) and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization after the expiry of the stipulated period as stated above.
Complainant is also directed to return the entire A.C. machine to o.p. nos.(a) and/or (b) within 15 days from the date of realization of the entire awarded amount.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
