DATE OF FILING : 11-02-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 10-04-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31-07-2014.
Naim Akhtar,
son of late Mahdi Hasan,
of 32, B.L. Rai Road, P.O. Golabari,
District –Howrah.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
of 21/1, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Road
( Dobson Road ),
District – Howrah,
PIN - 711101.
2. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions ( I ) Ltd.,
of 9th floor, Flat no. 93,
Poonam Building, 5/2, Russel Street,
Howrah – 7000 71.-------------------------------------------------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, Naim Akhtar, 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 replace the A.C. Machine in question with a brand new one, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one Split A.C. Machine from o.p. no. 1 manufactured by o.p. no. 2 on 25-04-2013 on payment of Rs. 13,670/- as down payment and the rest amount was to be paid in 8 monthly installments totaling Rs. 41,000/- along with Rs. 330/- for servicing for one time vide Annexure installment delivery challan dated 25-04-2013. And after two days of purchase, the machine was installed at the complainant’s residence. But it was found by the complainant within one week that the machine was not giving the normal cooling effect and it was much below the standard level of cooling strength. And it was informed to o.p. no. 1 on 02-05-2013 over telephone. But nothing was done by o.p. no. 1 and on advice of o.p. no. 1, complainant wrote a letter to o.p. no. 2 on 15-07-2013 vide Annexure dated 15-07-2013. But no fruitful result came out. Again on 03-10-2013, complainant sent one lawyer’s letter to o.p. no. 2 asking them to rectify the machine or to replace the same as the technician visited but could not settle the problem. After that complainant lodged one complaint with the Department of C.A. & F.B.P. on 24-10-2013 vide Annexure dated 24-10-2013. And o.p. no. 2 replied vide their letter dated 18-12-2013 but the matter could not be set at rest. Ultimately, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Notices were served. Both the o.ps. appeared and filed 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. We have carefully gone through the written versions filed by both parties and noted their contents. It is contended by o.p. no. 1 that as soon as complainant lodged a complaint with them, it was forwarded to o.p. no. 2 and o.p. no. 2 sent their technician and o.p. no. 2 echoed in the same line that their technician did not find any manufacturing defect and it was working properly. And further, it is also averred by o.p. no. 2 that in all subsequent complaints lodged by the complainant. O.p. no. 2 tried to visit and attend the call. But complainant did not allow them to enter. So the technician of o.p. no. 2 could not render proper service. Here we take a pose. During the course of hearing of argument, we asked the complainant whether the machine is working or not. All the time, ld. Advocate of the complainant replied that the machine is working. Here, in this case, no test report has been attached by the complainant in support of his contention that machine is not rendering standard cooling effect. We have also to realize what is the actual level of standard cooling effect to be given by an A.C. Machine. But it is admitted that complainant had paid the entire consideration price of the machine being Rs. 41,000/-. Complainant should get the ultimate pleasure and benefit out of such purchase. And it is the absolute duty of the o.ps. to redress the grievance of the complainant regarding his newly purchased A.C. machine. But o.p. no. 2 although received two letters of the complainants dated 15-07-2013 & 03-10-2013 and attended the machine but could not give proper redressal. The problem remained same. And we think that the o.p. no. 2 is required to be far more careful about their post sale service. And o.p. no. 2 should have sent one experienced technician to complainant’s residence to check up the machine in question. And even for argument’s sake, if it is accepted that complainant did not allow the technicians to enter, o.p. no. 2 should have sent one letter to the complainant informing him the date and time when the technicians would visit his residence. But o.p. no. 2 did not do so. And there occurred a degree of negligence on the part of o.p. no. 2. Accordingly we allow the petition in part against the o.ps.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 67 of 2014 ( HDF 67 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest in part without compensation but with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to send the expert technician to the residence of the complainant to do the needful as per the satisfaction of the complainant regarding the cooling effect of the A.C. Machine in question within one month from the date of this order i.d., penalty of Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon the o.ps.
That o.ps. are further directed to pay litigation costs of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.
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.
