DATE OF FILING: 15.02.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 16.12.2017.
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W):
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging manufacturing defect and deficiency in service against the Opposite Party ( in short the O.P) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 21.10.2014 the complainant for use in the residence purchase split Godrej Air Conditioner from the O.P.No.2 on payment of Rs.33,800/-. The O.P.No.2 issued retail invoice No. 8828 dated 21.10.2014 for Rs.45,100/-. The said Air Conditioner was five years warranty on compressor and one year warranty on all other parts except grill and plastic parts. The O.P.No.1 has undertaken repairs to the warranted parts free of charge. While the matter stood thus, the said Air conditioner start giving trouble during warranty period and as such the complainant lodged complaint with the O.P.No.3 on 17.09.2015 in service order No. 16015. Though the O.P.No.3 received the said service order No. 16015 on 17.09.2015 but did not turn up for any service. Again the complainant lodged complaint on 21.09.2015 in service order No.160615. After much persuasion over telephone and personal approach, the technician of the O.P.No.3 came with an old and defective split Air Conditioner for installation and for replacement. The technician of O.P.No.3 came on 11.01.2016 with the said old defective Air Conditioner for replacement but on looking to the worst condition of the said split air conditioner, the complainant did not agree for such unfair trade practice. The technician of O.P.No.3 took back of the old split air conditioner which was brought for replacement. Due to such type of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O. Ps the complainant suffered from harassment causing immense mental agony for which entitled for exemplary compensations. It is relevant to submit that the split air conditioner purchased on 21.09.2014 on payment of Rs.33,800/- is kept idle being totally out of order. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps either for replacement of a new split air conditioner or to refund Rs.33,800/- and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but they neither choose to appear nor filed any written version. Hence, the O.Ps were declared exparte on 06.06.2016. Therefore, the case is heard and proceeded exparte against the O.Ps on the date of final hearing.
4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case record and also perused the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. On perusal of the case record and after going through the written argument and other vital documents placed on the record, we find that there is no dispute or doubt that the complainant purchased a Spilt Godrej Air Conditioner on 21.10.2014 for personal purpose from O.P.No.2 bearing Model No. GSC 18 FG5WNG Sl.No-in-41356/41068 on payment of Rs.33,800/- towards cost of the said product as is evident from the retail invoice. The O.P.No.2 also issued a retail invoice bearing No.8828 dated 21.10.2014 duly signed by him. After using for a couple of months by the complainant, the said Air Conditioner found defective like PM Service, DISPLAY PCB NOT WORKING and other problems during warranty period. When it was frequently happened, the complainant reported the matter to the O.P.No.3 and he tried to repair the same vide service job sheet No.160515 dated 17.9.2015. However, the said Split Godrej Air Conditioner could not be repaired properly by the O.P.No.3. Again complainant approached to O.P.No.2 for another complaint on 21.09.2015. The O.Ps on notice did not appear and not filed written version of his case and did not came to contest the case. On perusal of the case record, it reveals that the O.Ps though received the notice from this Forum but did not prefer to contest. In the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case in our considered view we would like to say that in absence of any controverted contention from the side of the O.Ps, we are constrained to hold that the said Split Godrej Air Conditioner was defective. In this case, it is a fact which is not in dispute that the said Air Conditioner found defective with in warranty period and it was duly intimated to the O.P. 3 on 19.09.15 and 21.09. 15 but it the O.P.No.3 failed to rectify the same. When the Air Conditioner is found defective during the warranty period and even after repeated efforts made by the service centre it was not possible to rectify the same it would be construed the Air Conditioner was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. The most unwanted thing that was happen when it was duly intimated to the O.P. No.3 he after elapse of four month i.e. on 11.01.2016 came with an old Air Conditioner and approached to the complainant for replacement which is beyond doubt or dispute an example of unfair trade practice on part of O.Ps. In the foregoing fact and circumstance, we are constrained to accept the prayer of the complainant to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of Air Conditioner to the complainant. Similarly, the case against O.P.No.2 & 3 is dismissed since the O.P.No.2 is the sales centre and O.P.No.3 is the service centre who can’t refund the amount of the defective air conditioner. Hence, we feel that the O.P.No.1 is liable to refund the cost of air conditioner in dispute and at the same time the complainant is also to return the defective Air Conditioner to the O.P.No.1 on receipt of the cost from the O.P.No.l.
5. With regard to compensation, in this case, the learned counsel for the complainant has prayed that a sum of Rs.30,000/- may kindly be awarded towards compensation and an amount of Rs.5,000/- may be awarded as cost of litigation. However, on perusal of documents we find that the complainant has not filed any such cogent and convincing documentary evidence in support of his claim that he has actually suffered a loss as prayed in the complaint. We would, therefore like to direct the O.P.No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and inconvenience faced by the complainant and to pay Rs.1,000/- for cost of litigation since the complainant has engaged a professional Advocate for filing his case and has also paid court fees and incurred expenses in typing and affidavit while filing the complaint. In the light of above discussion and taking into account to the fact and circumstances of the case, we allowed the case of the complainant against O.P. No.1 who is liable to refund the cost of defective Air Conditioner i.e. Rs 33,800/- to the complainant. Similarly, the O.P.No.2 and 3 are exonerated from their liabilities respectively since the O.P.No.2 is retailer who sold the product and the O.P.No.3 is the authorized service centre.
6. In the result, we allowed the case of the complainant against O.P.No.1 who is liable to refund the cost of defective Air Conditioner i.e. Rs 33,800/- to the complainant. At the same time the O.P.No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- only towards compensation and Rs.1,000/ as cost of litigation to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to return the defective Air Condition to the O.P.No.1 on receipt of the cost of same. The aforesaid orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 16th December 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
