Smt. Pratima Basu,

d/o. late Santi Kumar Basu,

53/3, Kshetra Banerjee Lane,

Howrah – 2.---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

-           

1.      G. Pandey,

Managing Director,

Carrier Air Condition and Refregeration

Narsingpur, Kherki Daula Post-Gurgaon-

Narsingpur, Kherki Daula,

 Post – Gurgaon, Haryana,

PIN – 122004.

2.      M/S. Khosla Electronics ( P ) Ltd.,

Tobacco House, 1 & 2 Old Court Corner,

Kolkata – 700001.

3.      Aircon India,

69A, Abinash Chowdhury Lane,

Kolkata – 700046. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has   prayed for direction upon the o.ps. for replacement of the A.C. Machine by way of installing a new one together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of repeated requests did not replace the air-conditioning machine purchased by the complainant at a price of Rs. 27,000/- on 31-03-2012 which developed mechanical faults within couple of weeks from the date of purchase.

2.                  The o.p. no. 2 in filing written version contended interalia that he is a dealer of

the products and not responsible if the machine develops fault subsequently ; that he took prompt action against the complaint by sending it to the Customer Service Centre ; that he has been made party to this complaint unnecessarily.   

3.                   The O.P. no. 3 did not appear. So the case is  heard ex parte against him.

4.                  The O.P. no. 1 in their written version contended interalia that as per warranty

terms the machine  was attended by the  mechanic of the Customer Service  Centre deputed by the O.P. no. 1:  that on the second complaint filed in May, 2012 the O.P. no. 1 deputed its technician and he found that there was gas leakage  in the A.C. unit ; that gas was refilled and it started functioning properly ; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 1 ; that the complaint is harassing and to be dismissed forthwith.

5.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the

complainant purchased the   A.C. Machine model no. SCA 112011549, of 1 ton capacity Durakal 4 star splits on 31.3.2012 from the O.P. no. 1 at a price of Rs. 27,000/-. Admittedly the same after few days of installation developed mechanical disorder and took long time to cool a small room. O.P. no. 3 as per request of the complainant attended the call and found that the product developed technical snag and accordingly he conducted repairment by way of charging the gas etc. Thereafter the mechanic worked properly for couple of days and again it started malfunctioning resulting tremendous suffering to the complainant during the summer of 2012. Having been exasperated, she sent notices to the O.Ps. stating her misfortune on 27-06-2012, 07-09-2012 and 18-02-2013 only to receive rebuff.

7.                  Whatever  be the argument on behalf of the O.Ps. that they are ready to make

repair of the trouble as pointed out by the complainant, we trace gross deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. no. 1 inasmuch as the newly purchased A.C. machine purchased at a price of Rs. 27,000/- developed mechanical trouble within few days from its purchase dated 31-03-2012. It appears from the preventive maintenance sheet  issued by O.P. no. 3 that the repairment was done on 23-05-2012 i.e., within two months of its purchase. Within one month of the repairment, the  A.C. machine started malfunctioning. The complainant, a senior citizen, again sent notice to the O.P. no. 1 on 28-06-2012 narrating the plight she was suffering during the unbearable scorching summer. As no tangible result could be achieved from the correspondences as enclosed with the complaint, the complainant has come up before this Forum with the prayer for relief. It does not sound nice that a brand new machine purchased at a price of Rs. 27,000/- from the hard-earned money of the complainant develops mechanical fault within short while from it purchase. The O.P. no. 1 concerned is a repudiated company. It is their duty to replace it instead of placing laboured argument to divert the attention of the Forum. If the trust of the complainant, a bonafide consumer, is shattered,  the reputation of the  company in fact crumbles to the dust. During argument the complainant stated that she purchased two other A.C. Machines from the same company earlier as those machines give satisfactory service, she ventured for purchasing another one i.e.,  the A.C. Machine in dispute.

8.                  In view of the above we are, therefore, of the view that in selling a defective

A.C. Machine the O.Ps. committed gross deficiency in service and it requires to be replaced by a brand new one and to be installed at the residence of the complainant at the cost of the O.P. no. 1.

                 Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

                 Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.

            Hence,                                    

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 74  of 2013 ( HDF 74 of 2013 )  be and the same is  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 1 and dismissed without costs against the rest.   

      The O.P. no. 1, Managing Director, Carrier Air Condition and Refregeration, Narasingpur, Kherki Daula Post – Gurgaon – 122004, Haryana,  be directed to replace the existing defective air-conditioning machine with a brand new one at his own cost  within 30 days from the date of this order

      The o.p. no. 1 be further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for causing tremendous pain, suffering and prolonged harassment.  

      The o.p. no. 1 be further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.