JUDGMENT
Sri. Aswini Kumar Patra,President.
The facts of the complaint in brief is that, the complainant has purchased one Carrier Air Conditioner(A.C) from O.P. No.1 – Mahavir Enterprises on 24.03.2022 with a consideration of Rs.45,000/- vide Invoice No.10103 . After two days of its installation of the said AC it found defect and the service provider came & repaired the AC by filling gas but the said AC did not work properly. The complainant lodged a complaint on 17.05.2022 vide Complaint No.137320298 upon which the service provider came & detected leakage of gas but failed to repair the defective AC till today. Due to such defect the complainant do not want to keep the said AC and he wants to replace the same as per the condition of warranty as disclosed by the ops but the ops did not respond. Finding no other option the complaint filed this complaint and prayed before this Hon’ble Commission to direct the Ops to refund the bill amount of Rs.45,000/- with interest @ 12 % p.a or in alternative replace the AC and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- . Hence, this complaint.
On being noticed, the O.P No.1 appeared through their learned counsel Sri.S.K.Patjoshi & associate and filed their written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP No.2 & 3 did not appear.
To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the copy of Retail Invoice vide No.10103 dt.24.03.2022 & Original Warranty Card issued by the Mahavir Enterprises/Op No. 1 towards purchase of the alleged product/AC and the copy of the pleader Notice dt. 06.07.2022 served to the Ops. . The averment of the complaint petition is supported by an affidavit of the complainant also during hearing of the case he has adduced evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 , averment of which are corroborated with the contents of complaint petition. However, no evidence is adduced by the Ops though sufficient opportunities have been availed.
It is submitted by the Op NO.1 that, the complainant has purchased one Carrier AC from the Opp.Party No.1 and immediately after its sale forwarded the sale information to the Op No.2 & 3 who upon receiving the said information installed the AC .The complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Opp.Party No.1 in this dispute who is merely a seller and not the manufacturer and that, the Opp.Party No.1 has nothing to do with the manufacturing defect in the AC. In order to claim any manufacturing defect the complainant is required to produce the product in original for expert investigation. It is further submitted that, the 0p.Party No.1 has sold a brand new AC to the complainant and the Opp.Party No.1 is not liable for any manufacturing defect in the sold product/ A,C . The complainant having an ill motive has brought this fictitious complaint before this Commission. Hence, prayed to dismiss this complaint with exemplary cost.
After careful perusal of the materials on the case record, this Commission found that, the complainant has lodged complaint for repairing of his AC but the OPs failed to rectify the defects. The complainant stated that after its purchase, the technician of the Opposite Party installed the AC in his premises but the AC did not function properly due to leakage of gas. In spite of repeated requests also the Opp.Party did not listen to the complainant and the OPs failed to rectify the defects in the AC to restore its normal functioning for which the complainant suffered mental agony and finding no other option the complainant approached this Commission for his grievance.
It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the defects which arose within the warranty period and the alleged AC was found defective immediately after two days of its installation but the Ops failed to remove the defects or replace it when the defect is not reparable.
The complainant purchased the AC by paying an amount of Rs.45,000/-is not disputed. The AC did not function & gave troubles after its purchase which is attended by the authorized service provider of the ops but failed to remove the defects or replace it when the defect is found not reparable which certainly caused loss & mental agony to the complainant is proved by the complainant on affidavit remain unchallenged/un-rebutted .
After careful perusal of the case record, this Commission found that, the product/AC purchased from the Op.1 found defective within a period of warranty for which the complainant approached the Opposite Parties but the OPs failed to rectify the defects & to restore its normal functioning for which the complainant suffered mental agony and finding no other option the complainant approached the Commission with or his grievance. It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the defects which arose within the warranty period but the alleged product/AC is neither repaired nor replaced with new one by the Ops .The complainant purchased the product/AC for his day to day use/enjoyment but it found defective and as the OPs failed to rectify the defects completely which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops certainly caused sufferings to the complainant.
In the light of above said discussion and settled principle of law, It , therefore, stand proved that, the Opposite Party has committed “unfair trade practices” & deficient service causing injuries & harassment to the complainant .
The OP 2&3 being the manufacturer of the mobile set and the OP No.1 being seller who introduced a defective product to the complainant assuring false warranty of the product shall be jointly & severely liable to replace the alleged product/AC and to pay compensation for the financial loss & mental agony caused to the complainant due to such negligence & deficient service on the part of the Ops.
Hence, we are of the opinion that, a new product/AC of the same model free from defects & with fresh warranty be replaced to the complainant without charging any extra amount or in alternative refund the sell price amount of Rs.45,000/- with 12 % interest from the date filling of this complaint i.e 29.08.2022 subject to production of the alleged product/AC to the OP-1 and to pay Rs. 5,000/-towards cost of this litigation . In the result, this complaint is allowed in part with the following directions:-
ORDER
The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to replace the alleged product/AC with a new one of the same model free from defects & with fresh warranty to the complainant without charging any extra amount or in alternative refund the sale price of Rs.45,000/- with 12% interest p.a from the date filling of this complaint i.e 29.08.2022 and to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on receipt of this order subject to production of the alleged product/AC by the complainant to the OP-1. After compliance of this order, the opposite Party No.1 is at liberty to reimburse the said awarded amount from the Opp.Party No.2(two) & 3 (three) .
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order falling which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay compensation @ Rs. 500/- per day to the complainant till compliance of this order .
Pending application if any is also stands disposed off
President
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
I agree.
Member
Pronounced in open Commission today on this 26th day of April 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission .Ordered accordingly.
