DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Parganas, BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 446/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
08.08.2014 18.08.2014 03.07.2015
COMPLAINANT = Vs. = OPPOSITE PARTIES
Shri Subal Chandra Paul 1. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
S/o. Late Jatindra Chandra Paul Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli,
residing at Mumbai-400079.
BB-225, Sector-I,
Kolkata-700064. 2. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Appliances Division,
Block-GN, Sector-V,
Kolkata-700091.
J U D G E M E N T
The door of this Forum has been knocked by the Complainant, for redressal arising out of the consumer dispute as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In laconic, the case stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased two Godrej Brand Split Air Condition Machine of 1 Ton from the Opposite Party No. 2, for his two bed rooms separately under the Invoice No. 801/93163731 dated 21.05.2013 and 801/93163731 dated 21.05.2013 respectively under the instruction and/or suggestion of the technicians of the Opposite Party No. 2, whereas the Complainant already had a 1.5 ton Air Condition machine in his one bed room.
Written & Typed by me. Contd..…. 2/-
C. C. Case No. 446/2014
- :: 2 :: -
But the said 1 ton Air Conditioner Machine could not serve the purpose the proper service by cooling the room adequately. The Complainant lodged a complaint to the Opposite Party No. 2 and on inspection by the experts of the Opposite Party No. 2 they suggested to replace the said 1 ton Air Conditioner Machine by 1.5 ton, where as a 1.5 ton Air Conditioner Machine had already been installed. The Complainant further reported the matter to the Opposite Party No. 2 to replace the I ton Air Conditioner Machine by 1.5 ton but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed. The Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party No. 1 on 08.07.2013 but of no result, what amounts the deficiency and negligence on part of the Opposite Parties, for which the Complainant claimed the compensation due to such sufferings and harassment and mental agony and has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version denying each and every allegation made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint contending inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action, the case is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties and is not maintainable either in fact or in law and is totally false.
The specific case of the Opposite Party, in terse, is that, any decision of purchase of any product depends totally on the customer and in this particular case also the present Complainant being the customer came to the show room and after being duly satisfied decided to purchase two numbers of I ton Air Conditioner Machine, which was duly delivered on 21.05.2013 and installed and demonstrated on 22.05.2013. On receipt of the call of the Complainant the service Technician of the Opposite Party visited to the Complainant’s house on 06.06.2013 for checking the performance of the said Air Conditioner Machine and found no problem for which the demand of the Complainant for replacement of the said Air Conditioner Machine is not justified and all fact were conveyed to Complainant by a letter dated 23.10.2013.
Therefore there was no negligence or deficiency on part of the Opposite Parties in rendering the service towards the Complainant. Thus, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the case.
Points for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Written & Typed by me. Contd..…. 3/-
C. C. Case No. 446/2014
- :: 3 :: -
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Complainant is entitled to get the replacement of the said two Air Conditioner Machines purchased by him from the Opposite Parties or not.
In coming into conclusion regarding the present dispute we have gone through the Complaint and Written Version and also critically appreciated the material documents on record and we have gathered that admittedly Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties by purchasing two split Air Conditioner Machines of 1 ton each from the Opposite Party No. 2, for which undisputedly the Complainant had already paid a sum Rs. 31,500/- only, to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 18.05.2013 and the same was delivered on 21.25.2013.
The record reveals that the Complainant had also paid some more amount of Rs. 1,050/- only for buying water pipe and angel for installation of such split Air Conditioner Machines.
Manifestly, it is revealed from the record that after purchasing and installing the said 2 numbers of split Air Conditioner Machines of 1 ton each as per the instruction and/or advice of the technicians of the Opposite Party No. 2, as alleged by the Complainant, though the fact remains that the Complainant already had an Air Conditioner Machine of 1 ton which he changed under instruction of the Opposite Party. But after the same, the said two machines did not serve the purpose of adequate cooling of the bed rooms of the Complainant, for which the Complainant lodged the complaint via e-mail on 22.06.2013 to the Opposite Party, which is found from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant.
But surprisingly at this time when the technicians of the Opposite Party came for inspecting the said split Air Conditioner Machines, they suggested or advised to install a 1.5 ton Air Conditioner Machines instead of 1 ton which he already had earlier and changed under instruction of the technicians of the Opposite Party.
Materials on record reveal that, Opposite Party No. 2 is the seller and admittedly the dealer of the manufacturer company Opposite Party No. 1 and Complainant purchased two A C Machines from the Opposite Party No. 2. So, Opposite Parties shall never be avoided the liability towards the Complainant.
Written & Typed by me. Contd..…. 4/-
C. C. Case No. 446/2014
- :: 4 :: -
Thus the Opposite Parties is liable to replace the said 1 ton two Air Conditioner Machines by 1.5 ton after payment of balance consideration amount towards the Opposite Party No. 2.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against both the Opposite Parties with cost of Rs. 3,000/- only payable by both the Opposite parties to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order.
That the Opposite Party is directed to replace the said two Air Conditioner Machines of 1 ton purchased by the Complainant with any other Air Conditioner Machines of 1.5 ton of his choice within one month from the date of this order and the Complainant shall have to pay the balance consideration amount between that 1 ton Air Conditioner Machines with that 1.5 ton Air Conditioner Machines to the Opposite party accordingly.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Party within a period of one month from the date of this order, the Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which amount shall be deposited by the Opposite Party in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Written & Typed by me.
