In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.133/2012

1)                   Sandip Kr. Bhadra,

Block-FD, Bldg. No.379, 2nd Floor,

Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700106.                                                    ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Tobacco House, 1&2, Old Court House Colrner

(Near Lalbazar), Kolkata-1.

2)       Hitachi Home and Life Solution (India) Ltd.

Flat-9B, Poonam Bldg. 5/2 Russell Street,

Kolkata-71, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.

3)       Hitachi Home and Life Solution (India) Ltd.

333/D, Jassore Road, Ground Floor, Kolkata-89.

4)       Manager Service Operations,

Hitachi Home and Life Solution (India) Ltd.

A-15, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.                                                                    ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.                                                        

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   9    Dated  31/01/2013.

Smt. S. Basu, Member.

            In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that complainant has purchased an A.C machine from o.p. no.1 on 9.6.10 where o.p. nos.2,3,4 are the manufacturer. The cost of the said machine was Rs.37,500/- which was installed by the men of o.p. nos.2,3,4 on 16.6.10 after receiving the installation  charge of Rs.1525/-. As per complainant from installation of the said machine it was working properly for 10 months and then suddenly on 9.4.11, within the warranty period, the machine was started problem which was informed by the complainant to o.p. no.3 and ultimately on 18.5.11 the parts of the machine took to the workshop of manufacturer for repairing on the very same day i.e. on 18.5.11. Thereafter, on 1.9.11 complainant had to face again problem in relation to the cooling by the said machine and was informed to o.p. no.3 and the dispute of the machine was evolved immediately. But even after repairing of the said machine twice again on 21.3.12 the problem of cooling by the machine in question recurred. Even after repeated request to all the o.ps. to change the defective  A.C. machine, the o.ps. did not pay heed to redress the dispute. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. did not contest in this case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against them.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant, evidence and documents in particular and heard in details every nook and corner of ld. lawyer of complainant. It is needed to be mentioned that as none of the o.ps. have appeared before this Forum even after valid service of notices, we have no alternative but to hear the case ex parte against all the o.ps. and all the documents brought before this Forum by complainant have been unchallenged piece of testimony.

            From the record it is observed that complainant purchased the A.C. machine in question on 9.6.10 which  was installed on 16.6.10 and it is also apparent from the record that the said machine was out of order for the first time on 18.5.11 i.e. only after eleven months from the date of installation. Thereafter, the machine was out of order for another two times within very short period from the first repairing and ultimately the problem of cooling recurred and the machine could not perform properly.

            Therefore, we are of the opinion that the machine in question was suffering from manufacturing defects which has caused suffering and mental agony to the complainant even after purchasing a brand new machine. Therefore, it is our view that o.p. no.1 being seller and o.p. nos.2,3,4 being manufacturer are liable for supplying the defective machine and they are duty bound to compensate the complainant and complainant is eligible to get relief partly as prayed for.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against all the o.ps. O.p. nos.2, 3 and 4 are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the cost of the machine in question  amounting to Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred) only and also to pay the installation charges of Rs.1525/- (Rupees on thousand five hundred twenty five) only. O.p. nos.1,2,3 and 4 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. O.ps. are directed to comply the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of COPRA, 1986.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.