DATE OF FILING : 08-11-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 05-12-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 16-07-2014.
Helal Sana,
son of Abdul Aziz Sana,
resident of Unsani, Sanapara, P.S. Jagacha,
District –Howrah.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Great Easter Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
a company having its business place
at Sundarpara Road, Jagacha,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711104.
2. Whirl Pool Home Appliances,
having its consumer head office at
28, NIT Faridabad, U.P.
3. Whirlpool Service Center,
at B1/A/12, 1st floor,
Mohon Co-operative Industrial Complex,
Mathur Road, New Delhi,
PIN – 110044.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, Helal Sana, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 (
as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 29,800/-, being the purchase price of the A.C. Split Machine in question, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with litigation costs and other reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the case is that complainant bought one A.C. Split Machine from
o.p. no.1 on payment of Rs. 29,800/- vide Annexure ‘A’ on 16-05-2013 duly manufactured by o.p. no. 2. And the machine was delivered and installed at his home on 18-05-2013 and 19-05-2013 respectively. And since installation, the machine was not working properly which was informed to o.p. no. 1 by the complainant. O.p. no. 1 supplied the phone number of service centre of o.p. no. 2, herein o.p. no. 3. But it is alleged by the complainant that o.p. no. 3 responded to his call but did not do any thing fruitful. He could not get the benefit of such purchase. And being frustrated complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
3. Notices were served upon o.ps. They appeared and filed any written version separately. Accordingly, case heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is the specific plea of o.p. no. 1 that it is only the retail agent / seller of various electronic gadgets manufactured by o.p. no. 2 and others and the case is not maintainable against them. But the tax invoice dated 16-05-2013 i.e., Annexure ‘A’ was provided by o.p. no. 1 only which means the entire purchase price was taken by o.p. no. 1. O.p. nos. 2 & 3 by filing their written version have stated that they were never informed about any defect of the said machine by the complainant since installation and service request document dated 19-05-2013 was provided to the complainant at the time of installation of the said machine not for doing any other service to the machine. And after receiving the summon of this Forum, o.p. nos. 2 & 3 offered the replacement of the compressor of the said machine free of cost vide their letter dated 20-01-2014 copy annexed with a request to enhance the electricity voltage of his house which is much below the required level i.e., 170 voltage in place of normal domestic 220 voltage. The normal operating voltage of A.C. Split Machine is 220 voltage. So, there is no manufacturing defect in the said machine for which o.ps. are liable to refund the purchase price of the said machine. Here we take a pose. We all know that installation of the A.C. Machine is done by the manufacturer, being o.p. no. 2 through their authorized service centre, being o.p. no. 3 here. At the time of installation, those persons who came for installation on behalf of o.p. nos. 2 & 3 should have mentioned such thing that below 220 voltage, the machine shall not perform well. But without telling that, they installed the machine received Rs. 2,250/- as installation charge from the complainant. It is nothing but a severe deficiency on the part of o.p. no. 2 & 3. It was the duty of the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 and also of o.p. no. 1 to inform the complainant about the required level of voltage for running an A.C. Split Machine which the primary necessity for running the same and it was not even told by the persons who installed the same. And the complainant suffered a loss due to the collective negligence on the part of the o.ps. It is not at all a luxury for a common man to file a case. He was harassed and compelled to do so. Accordingly, we hold the o.ps. to be deficient in providing service to the complainant. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 386 of 2013 ( HDF 386 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 29,800/- to the complainant within one month from this order and complainant is also directed to return the A.C. machine to the o.ps. at the cost of the o.ps.
That the complainant do get an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 31,300/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
