Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Mumbai(Suburban)

CC/15/63

UMASHANKAR A GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ & BOYCE MANU. CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S S SINGH

30 Dec 2015

ORDER

Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District
Admin Bldg., 3rd floor, Nr. Chetana College, Bandra-East, Mumbai-51
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/63
 
1. UMASHANKAR A GUPTA
SHOP NO.A-1-10, ADITYA APARTMENTS, OPP.M.W.DESAI HOSPITAL, NAVJALA PADA, D B PATEL ROAD, MALAD (E), MUMBAI 400097
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. GODREJ & BOYCE MANU. CO. LTD
THROUGH MANAGING DIREECTOR, PIROJSHA NAGAR, VIKHROLI, MUMBAI 400079
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S S VYAVAHARE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. S.V.KALAL MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
तक्रारदार गैरहजर.
 
For the Opp. Party:
सामनेवाले एकतर्फा.
 
ORDER

PRESENT:-

                   Complainant by Adv. S.S. Singh

                   Opponent Ex-parte

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. S. Vyavahare, Hon’ble President.)                                                           

1)                The complainant has filed this complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opponent for getting compensation alleging deficiency of service on their part.

2)                Facts giving rise to the present complaint in short are as under.

3)                The opponent deals in manufacturing of refrigerator, air conditioner and other ele4ctronics items. The office of the opponent is situated on the address mentioned in the complaint.

4)                The complainant is a resident of Malad, Mumbai. He is a senior partner in M/s. Umashankar Gupta & Co., Chartered Accountant. It is the contention of the complainant that, on 06/05/2014 he has purchased one split air conditioner from the opponent for Rs.32,460/-. However, since the beginning the said air conditioner was giving problem and was smelling like toilet smell. The complainant immediately brought this fact to the notice of opponent. The senior technician of the opponent visited to the premises of the complainant. He has also carried out repairs. However, inspite of that the problem was continuing. Thereafter the complainant repeatedly made correspondence with the opponent. Since, 13th October 2014 the complainant started facing problem of leakage of water from said air conditioner. This fact was also noticed to the notice of opponent repeatedly. However the opponent did not pay any attention. Since the air conditioner was not working properly and was having basic defects that too within the warranty period the complainant asked for replacement of air conditioner. The opponent was ready to give discount for second purchase of air conditioner but they have refused to replace the air conditioner. According to the complainant the air-conditioner which was sold to him was having manufacturing defects and therefore the alleged act on the part of opponent amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore complainant has filed this present complaint and prays for replacement of new air conditioner or in the alternatively price of the said air conditioner. The complainant also claims compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint. The opponent though served remains absent. Therefore on 07/08/2015 matter was proceeded ex-parte against the opponent. The complainant was called upon to adduce his evidence which he did so by filing his evidence affidavit. Complainant also submitted his written arguments. The contents of evidence affidavit and written arguments have gone unchallenged as the matter is proceeded ex-parte against the opponent. In addition to the evidence affidavit complainant has also filed invoice of air conditioner which justifies the purchase of air conditioner form the opponent and therefore the said documents is sufficient to conclude the relationship of complainant and opponent as consumer and service provider. The job sheet filed on record by the complainant shows that, there was water leakage from the air conditioner whereas e-mail correspondence on record shows the efforts on the part of complainant for getting replace machine. The content of this correspondence has gone unchallenged. Therefore we have no hesitation to conclude that opponent by selling defective air conditioner is liable for deficiency of service on its part. Therefore complainant is entitled to get new air conditioner as the defect in air conditioner was within warranty period. We also hold that complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint. Hence order.

ORDER

  1. Complaint is allowed.
  2. It is hereby declared that, the opponent has indulged in deficiency of service by selling defective air conditioner to the complainant.
  3. Opponent is directed to replace the air conditioner of same brand within two months from the receipt of order. In the alternatively the opponents is directed to refund the amount of air conditioner within two months from the receipt of the order. Failing to which the opponent shall pay @ 10% on said amount from the date of order till realization of amount.
  4. Opponents is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S S VYAVAHARE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.V.KALAL]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.