Complainant of the instant suit, who have filed the instant suit against Godrej and Boyce for defective Air conditioner and unsatisfactory service under the customer protection Act, 2019. The complainant had purchased a 1.5 ton air conditioner of Godrej and Boyce Company on 23.02.2024 for himself. That after using for some period the complainant started suffering its cooling performance. Complainant firstly filed a complaint on 04.04.2024 with Godrej company and received the said company with docket No. ID KO404697178. That after filing the complaint being docket no. IDKo404697178, a technician visited on 05.04.2024 and assured the complainant that the AC was fine and however, the cooling issues persisted. After that complainant submitted another complaint on 17.04.2024 with ID KI704708121 as the same problem arose. The service engineer visited on 18.04.2024 and said that he would consult with senior colleague before making a decision and despite this, the complaint was closed without resolution. After that the complainant filed another complaint on 19.04.2024 with ID KI904709676. That on 23.04.2024 the complainant received a message stating that the earlier compliant was closed and a new compliant ID K2304713775 had been opened.  In this time the complainant made numerous calls to customer care and the service centre but received no resolution and the service centre owner outright refused to address my concerns. That on 04.05.2024 a Godrej   technician visited on the third   occasion and examined the AC and identified a problem with the PCB and he has placed an order for a replacement part. That on 10.05.2024, 28.05.24 and 01.06.24 the complainant several times complaint to service centre. But they did not response. That on 01.06.2024 the complainant made another compliant as the earlier compliant was not solved and this compliant is still pending.

    Hence the complainant approached before this commission with a prayer to order the OP to return his money amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which was the expenditure of full glass enclosure of his office for the AC installation including harassment and mental agony. The notices are issued to the OP but they did not appear before this commission hence the case will run exparte.

DECISION

In order to substantiate the compliant complainant examined himself and filed the Xerox copy of documents.

This commission carefully perused the untested testimony of complainant and unchallenged documents.

Considering all of these documentary and oral evidence, this commission is directing the OP Company to pay Rs.28,490/- the price of  1.5 to AC, and Rs. 5,000/- for compensation for his mental agony and harassment.

Hence ordered

that the complaint petition be and same is allowed with a direction to the OP Company to pay Rs.28,490/-the price of 1.5 to AC and  6%  interest from date of final order  and Rs. 5,000/- for compensation for his mental agony and harassment within 45 days from this date of order.

The complainant is directed to return the said disputed AC to the OP Company.

Complainant is at liberty to put an execution of the final order of this commission as per provision of Consumer Protection Act2019.

Let a copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost on proper application.