DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 138 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING: 10.12.2018 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05.11.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
Member : Jagadish Ch. Barman
COMPLAINANT : Uttam Kumar Nag, 24 Jhil Park, Kamrabad, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700 150.
O.P/O.Ps : Khosla Electronics, Baruipur Brunch, Kolkata – 700 144.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the O.P. company, the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against the O.P.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased one Air Conditioner machine set manufactured by Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. bearing model no. CS-KC18RKY-1 from the shop of O.P. on 11.04.2017 for a consideration price of Rs. 35,500/-. The O.P. agreed to provide a copper condenser with the AC machine. The AC machine was installed in the house of the complainant. About 1 year after, when the employee of O.P. came to the house of the complainant for servicing the air conditioner, it was detected by the complainant that the condenser of the AC machine was not made of copper; it was made of aluminium. According to the complainant, the O.P. agreed to supply copper condenser with the AC machine. They did not supply the same and thus they adopted unfair trade practice resulting deficiency in service. So, by filing the instant case, he has prayed for refund of the amount paid by him to the O.P. and also for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by the O.P. due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.
The O.P. has been contesting the case by filing written version of its statement wherein it is mainly contended inter-alia that the O.P. did never agree to sell the AC machine with copper condenser. It sold AC machine to the complainant with aluminium condenser and also installed the same in the house of the complainant. The complainant has put forward his grievance about 1 year and 8 months after the installation of AC machine in his house and this proves, as goes his submission, that the grievance of the complainant is altogether false and frivolous. Dismissal of the complainant is therefore prayed for by the O.P.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the O.P. guilty of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant, vide his petition dated 06.03.2019. The O.P. has led evidence on affidavit. Questionnaires, replies and BNA filed by the party are kept in record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1 and 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version of the O.P. and the material placed on record by the parties. Considered all these.
It is the case of the complainant that he was enamoured by an advertisement of Panasonic Company uploaded in the website of “AMAZON” to the effect that the AC machine of Panasonic Company would be sold inter-alia with copper condenser and having been swayed by the said advertisement he purchased one AC machine of Panasonic Company, vide the model no. CS-KC18RKY-1, from the shop of the O.P. company for a consideration price of Rs. 35,500/-. His further case is that he called upon the employees of O.P. for servicing of the AC machine about 1 year after the purchase of the said machine and it was at that time he came to detect that the condenser provided with the said machine was aluminium one instead of a copper one as was advertised by Panasonic Company. His main allegation is that he has been deceived by the O.P. who is the authorized seller of the company and the O.P. has adopted unfair trade practice in order to make wrongful gain. To this allegation of the complainant, replies of the O.P. are that he sold the AC machine to the complainant with aluminium condenser and that neither he nor anyone of the company assured the complainant that the condenser of the AC machine would be a copper one. According to the submission of the O.P., the complainant has filed the instant case with false allegation with a view to earning unlawful profit by way of compensation.
In the context of submission and counter-submission of the parties as referred to above, it is to be seen whether the O.P. has actually adopted any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has filed on record the advertisement of Panasonic Company, which is available from the website of “AMAZON”. The advertisement goes thus :
“Panasonic CS-KC18RKY-1 split AC (1.5 ton, 3 star rating, white, copper)”.
On behalf of the O.P., one page of service manual of the air conditioner has been filed along with a sheet describing in details of the AC machine of Panasonic Company. From these 2 documents, it is crystal clear that the AC machine which was supplied to the complainant bears its no. CS-KC18RKY-1. It is also clear therefrom that the condenser of the said machine i.e. indoor heat exchanger is made of aluminium. So, having taken into consideration these documents of the O.P. we may safely hold that the AC machine which was supplied to the complainant is having aluminium condenser but not copper condenser and the model no. of that machine is CS-KC18RKY-1.
Now it stands further established on record that the products supplied to the complainant is not in accordance with the advertisement given by the company of the O.P. in the website. The advertisement in the website gives out that the AC machine of model no. CS-KC18RKY-1, split AC will include copper condenser but the machine supplied to the complainant, bearing same model no. does not have copper condenser; it is supplied to the complainant with aluminium condenser. One thing is advertised by the company with respect to the goods, but the goods do not correspond to the description of the advertisement. So, it is found that the advertisement of the company of the O.P. regarding AC machine supplied to the complainant was not true; it was a false advertisement and this false advertisement is given by Panasonic Company in order to befuddle the innocent customer. Such an activity on the part of the company of the O.P. is nothing but unfair trade practice which is highly condemnable by each and every sane person. It is argued on behalf of the O.P. that the advertisement which is placed on record by the complainant is not the advertisement of the Panasonic Company; it is the advertisement of “AMAZON”. To this submission of Ld. Lawyer for the O.P., our replies are that the advertisement is made by Panasonic Company and such advertisement is made in the website of the “AMAZON”. “AMAZON” is an internet market place where the seller gathers to sell their products. “AMAZON” is a common market place and Panasonic Company is the seller in that market place. “AMAZON” cannot have any interest to give a false advertisement in the website relating to the goods of Panasonic Company. It is none but Panasonic Company who has given such false advertisement in the website of “AMAZON” with regard to its products. Regard being had to all these, we do not find any merits in the submission advanced on behalf of the O.P. and having discarded such submission, we do hold that it is none but, Panasonic Company who has given false advertisement in the website of “AMAZON” to tantalize the customer by its goods of inferior quality.
It is submitted on behalf of the O.P. that the O.P. actually sold AC machine with aluminium condenser. He never agreed to sell AC machine with copper condenser to the complainant. By this submission, it is sought to make out before the forum that there is no place of practicing any unfair trade in the matter of selling AC machine to the complainant. But the copy of tax invoice produced on record by the parties give indication contrary to the above submission of the O.P. There is a column “Description” in tax invoice. The detailed description of the AC machine and the parts thereof should have been mentioned in that column of tax invoice by the O.P., while delivering tax invoice to the complainant. There is no such detailed description in tax invoice. Had there been such detailed description, we could have been able to say easily that the complainant purchased the AC machine having full knowledge about aluminium condenser of it. But, in absence of such detailed description in tax invoice, we do say that it is a fault on the part of the O.P. and this fault is deliberately created by O.P. in order to cover up the unfair practice of him. Suppression of material facts in tax invoice also amounts to misrepresentation about the goods supplied and therefore it is also a part of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service caused by the O.P.
It is further contended on behalf of the O.P. that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. According to the submission made on behalf of the O.P., the Panasonic Company which is the manufacturing company should have been made party to the case. The O.P. is authorized seller of the said manufacturing company and as such he is agent of the company. He sold the goods to the complainant as being the agent of the manufacturing company. The unfair trade practice and deficiency in service are caused by the O.P. himself and therefore the O.P. is liable for his deeds which are not in accordance with the creeds advertised by his company in the website of “AMAZON”. The complainant is entitled to compensation from the O.P.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for his unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as well, within a month of this order failing which the compensation amount and the cost amount will bear interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till full realization thereof. Complainant’s prayer for refund of the consideration money is however turned down because of long usage of the AC machine so far.
It is further directed that the complainant must pay Rs. 20,000/- to legal aid account of this forum, if the compensation amount as referred to above is paid to the complainant by the O.P.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree Member Member President
Directed and corrected by me
President
