This is an application U/s.12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, filed by the complainant, Smt. Debjani Biswas.

            The complainant’s case in short is that she purchased one Samsung Inverter Technology Air Conditioner with warranty of compressor for ten years having model number AR18HV5MBWKNNA from the branch office cum showroom of the O.P. No.1 at Serampore at a consideration of Rs.40,000/- on 9.4.2014 and after receiving the total consideration amount the O.P. No.1 issued one Tax Invoice in favour of the complainant.

            Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 installed the said air conditioner in the house of the complainant but within few days of such installation, the complainant found cooling problem in respect of the said product and to that effect she verbally informed the same to the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 gave opinion that the problem would be cured after continuous use of the said machine and accordingly, the complainant started using the machine but the said problem remained unchanged.

            Finding no other alternative the complainant again inform the same to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. no.1 provided a phone number of the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.1 sent a person for verify the problem and after checking the said machine the person disclosed that he is unable to detect any fault and it might be happening due to voltage problem. But there was no voltage problem in her house.  At that juncture the said person advised to make a watch of the air conditioner for a week whether the said problem occurred again or not and in case of further occurrence of such problem, she would lodge a complaint before the O.P. No.2.

            All on a sudden on 23.5.2016 the A.C. Machine stopped working and accordingly the complainant lodged a complaint before the O.P. No.2.  O.P. No.2 sent his technician to the house of the complainant and the technician made service of the machine after charging of Rs.572/- by using a cash receipt.  But within a few days of such servicing the said machine again not working well and the outer part has not been opened.  As such the complainant again lodged complaint.  The O.P. No.2 again send his technician and after observing the machine the technician opined that a parts is required to be replaced and accordingly said parts was replaced by the technician by charging Rs.1,829/- on 25.5.2016.

            Further on 25.8.2016 the machine again stopped working and again O.P. No.2 sent his technician and technician change the compressor and accordingly he charged Rs.2,325/-. The complainant being a bonafide purchaser she did not find any relief and she came to understand that since the date of purchase the O.P. No.1 have supplied a defective machine in favour of the complainant and as such within a very short period of purchase the machine occurred problem and the O.P. No.1 in collusion with the O.P. No.2 suppressed the said defect to the complainant and as such it is crystal clear that both the O.Ps. have been continuing an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

            That in such a situation the complainant sent a legal notice to both the O.ps. asking them to exchange the defective air conditioner with a new one or refund the consideration value along with interest within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice but O.Ps. inspite of receiving the said notice none of the O.Ps. responded the same. 

            Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief with a prayer to direct the O.ps. to exchange the defective air conditioner machine with a new one or in default, refund the consideration value along with interest of 18% per annum in favour of the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.

            Despite receiving notice O.P. No.1 & 2 did not turn up and failed to file written version. So, the proceeding run ex-parte against them vide order dated 4.10.2018. 

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition.  So, it is needless to discuss.  Complainant also filed brief notes of argument which is taken into consideration for passing final order.

            We have gone through the petition of complaint, tax invoice of O.P. No.1 and cash receipts of O.P. No.2 in respect of service provided time to time and correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party, evidence of the complainant and the BNA filed by the complainant. 

            It appears from the written argument that the O.P. No.1 delivered a product to the complainant and within a few days of installation she found that cooling problem occurred in respect of the said product.  So, she approached O.P. No.1 but the O.P. No.1 could not solve her problem but advised to use continuously then the problem will be cured.  In accordance with the advice of the O.P. No.1 she used the said machine continuously but the problem of the said machine remain unchanged.  So, she communicated with O.P. No.2, who on his turn provided a person who checked the machine and opined that the problems might be happening due to voltage problem but there was no voltage problem in her house.  As per advice of that technical person of O.P. No.2 she watched the air conditioner for a week and when the problem recurred and the machine stopped working then she lodged a complaint before O.P. No.2 and in response to the complaint of this complainant O.P. No.2 sent his technician to the house of the complainant, who after servicing the said machine charged a sum of Rs.572/- by issuing a cash receipt to the same.  And after a few days of servicing the machine again stopped functioning and on the basis of the complainant O.P. No.2 again sent a technician on 25.5.2016 who replaced the defective parts and charged a sum of Rs.1829/-. Again the machine stopped working then he contacted the OP No.1 who on his turn advised to contact OP No.2 to lodge any complaint regarding the functioning of the machine. At the behavior of the OP no.1 the complainant being hurt and then lodged a complaint to OP No.2, who on his turn sent another technician to the house of the complainant on 26.08.2016 . The said technician took a sum of Rs.2325/- to change the compressor and opined that to get the proper result of the said compressor the complainant had to change the other parts also. The complainant suffered a lot due to absence of AC during the period of hot weather. She assailed that by suppressing the defects in the AC machine the OP No.1 in collusion with OP no.2 sold the same to this complainant which is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

     We have gone through the petition of complaint, copy of receipts and correspondences between the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the documents in record and hearing the argument it appears that the complainant purchased the said AC machine before the opposite party No.1 and within a few days after the said purchase the impugned machine became inoperative for which she approached the OP No.1 but the OP No.1 advised to meet the OP No.2. The OP No.2 provided technicians to repair the said AC machine by taking money and the Xerox copies of money receipts are in the record. But the machine could not be functional even after replacing the parts so the complainant is deprived of getting service from the opposite parties and approached the opposite parties several times but of no result so she getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying direction upon the opposite parties as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.  It is well proved from the Xerox copies of money receipts that the complainant paid the repairing cost to the technician in different occasions but the said AC machine could be functional. But the opposite parties failed to provide appropriate service to this complainant and never made any complaint to the manufacturing company as the compressor of AC machine needed to be replaced as opined by the technician of the opposite parties within the warranty period. It was the duty of the opposite party to inspect the AC machine of the complainant properly by the technician of the manufacturing company and thereafter find a report before the company if the machine could not repaired within the warranty period and inform the complainant accordingly. But the case record speaks that the AC machine functioned for two seasons with a few problems and thereafter caused trouble for which the complainant suffered a lot and lastly stopped. But machine could not be repaired by the technician of the opposite party No.2. Thus it is crystal clear that the complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of the opposite parties. So the deficiency of opposite party is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The complaint petition is unchallenged one as the proceeding run ex-parte against them and it is heard ex-parte.

      It has been provided in the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well that the objective of enacting the said legislation is to ensure better protection of the interests of the consumers. Once it is proved from the face of the case record as well as from the iota of evidence that the complainant did not receive service for which she paid the money to the seller then seller / service provider is under liability to give compensation in view the facts & circumstances of the case.

Considering all the facts and circumstances we may hold that the complaint petition deserves to be allowed.

From the above discussion we can safely conclude that the complainant proved her case by producing sufficient documents. 

The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has abled to prove her case and the Opposite Party  No.1 shop & the opposite party No.2 service center of the said Company are liable to change the defective AC machine of the complainant with compensation for mental pain and agony.

ORDER

It is ordered that the complaint case being No.177of 2016 be and the same is allowed ex- parte against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.6000/-.

The opposite party No.1&2 are jointly and/or severally directed to replace the defective AC machine by a new one having same brand and features in default return the invoice price of the said machine.

 The OP No.1&2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10000/- for causing mental pain, agony and harassment of this complainant.

All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of this order.

 At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party No.1&2  shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement /sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.