Judgment : Dt.24.4.2017

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member

            This petition of complaint is filed by Sri Biswajit Mondal alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Godrej Co. Ltd. and Great Eastern Trading Company.

            Case of the complaint in brief is that he purchased one 1.5 ton split Air Conditioner from Great Eastern Trading Company on 15.4.2016 at a consideration of Rs.38,500/-. Subsequently, the said A.C. was installed on 24.4.2016 and an amount of Rs.5,650/- was charged for the installation. The Complainant on 1.5.2016 found that the said A.C. stopped cooling and lodged complaint on 2.5.2016. On 3.5.2016, service Engineer attended the said A.C. but the said A.C. was not repaired due to technical fault. On 7.5.2016 the said A.C. was again attended by Service Engineer and the problem was solved. On 15.5.2016 the said A.C. again developed defect for which on 16.5.2016 complaint was lodged and one service engineer attended the A.C. but could not make it defect free. On 17.5.2016 again service engineer attended the A.C. machine and did some repairing works. On 12.8.2016 the said A.C. again stopped cooling. On 13.8.2016 complaint was lodged and on the same date a service engineer attended the said machine. However, on same date the Complainant over e-mail requested the OP no.1 to replace the said A.C. On 16.8.2016 service engineer attended the machine and solved the problem. It is the specific contention of the Complainant is that since he has spent around Rs.45,000/- he will not accept a defective A.C. Hence, he has prayed for replacement of the said defective A.C. alternatively refund of money by the OP, to pay Rs.50,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and causing harassment and mental agony to the Complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Notices were sent upon the OPs but the OP No.1 did not contest. The OP No.2 contested the case and filed written version stating, inter alia, that being a mere seller of the said A.C. he is not at all liable to provide after sale service to the purchaser and moreover the Complainant has not filed any authentic document towards defects of the said A.C. and, therefore, his allegation cannot be entertained on the basis of assumption or presumption.

            The Complainant and the OP No.2 adduced evidence on affidavit followed by cross examination and reply and filed notes of argument. From the notes of arguments filed by the Complainant, it appears that the complainant has filed the instant case on 7.9.2016 but some subsequent event have taken place which he inform in his notes on argument.

            On perusal of the documents filed informing subsequent event, it appears that the OP No.1 has already replaced the A.C. in question by new one on 17.3.2017 and also issued warranty afresh. Considering the events occurred before filing the instant case, it appears that the Complainant himself stated that the OP sent service engineer promptly after having complaint from the end of the Complainant. Considering such conduct of the OP, we find there is no intention on the part of the OPs to harass the Complainant by shedding the responsibility of after sale service from their shoulder, and moreover, they ultimately replaced the said A.C. by new one with warranty afresh as per request of the Complainant.

            Considering such state of affairs, we are inclined to pass no order as to compensation and costs.

            The Complainant has prayed for direction of replacement of the said A.C. but the OP have already replaced the same by new one. Therefore, nothing is left.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/411/2016 is disposed of without any direction upon the OP since they have already redressed the grievance of the Complainant.