Judgment : Dt.22.9.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Dr. Bijoy Banerjee, son of Late Bhutnath Banerjee, 301, M.G.Road, “Biswanath Enclave”, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 104 against the Manager, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Appliance Division, Pt.-II, Pirozshahnagar, Vikoroli(W), Mumbai-400 079, OP No.1, the Manager, M/s Great Eastern Appliance Pvt. Ltd., 20, Old Court House Street, P.S.-Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001, OP No.2 and the Manager, M/s Great Eastern Appliance Pvt. Ltd., 41C, NSC Bose Road, P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata-700 040, OP No.3, praying for a direction upon the O.P. to take back the defective A/C concerned and refund the value paid with interest of 9%p.a. from the date of purchase till realistion and for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased on 7.6.2014 one 1.5 ton wall  mounted split air conditioner, model No.gsc 18F G5 WNg with Serial No.0323/0435 and it was installed on 28.6.2014. That A.C. went out of order within one month from the time of installation. OPs were informed about the same over phone. But it did not yield any result. On 10.7.2014, Complainant met one Mr. H. P. Chatterjee at Salt Lake Office. But he failed to take appropriate action. One mechanic named Mihir Mohdal visited on 16.6.2015, but, he also failed to put the machine in order. Complainant made hectic attempts to persuade the OPs in respect of the problem, he was facing, and on 28.05.2016, the Complainant sent a letter of demand justice to all concerned and finding no other alternative it was revealed that the A.C. had manufacturing defect. The conduct of the OPs remained deficient for which Complainant suffered. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No. 2 & 3 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. They have alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as Complainant did not furnish any expert opinion to specify the allegation. Further, they have stated that OP No.3 deals with finance. The statement made in the petition of complaint are matters of record and is not denied. The Complainant was fully satisfied with the demonstration given by the OP No.1. OP No.3 also submitted that the Complainant came to this Forum regarding the problems of gas leaking as well as scaffolding of Godrej A.C. Machine and other reliefs which are repaired free of cost as it was within the warranty period. Further, these OPs have stated that they are not liable for any manufacturing defect. As such, they have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

            OP No.1 has also filed written version and has denied the allegations of the complaint. OP No.1 has stated that he extended active cooperation to rectify the defect. The OP is always ready and willing to co-operate the customer. The warranty period has already been over and no warranty can be issued. This OP has further stated that the worker/ mechanic went to the Complainant’s house. This OP never delivered defective goods but it is found any goods defective this OP tries to solve the problem. The Complainant is not entitled to any cost or compensation. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief and the prayer was allowed.

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP Nos.2 & 3 filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OPs filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and thereafter the case was fixed for argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has prayed for an order directing the OPs to take back defective A.C. and refund the value  paid with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till its final refund and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            In this regard, we find that Complainant paid Rs.37,100/- for purchasing the A.C. machine on 7.6.2014 out of which he paid Rs.4,698 as VAT. Further, it appears that the warranty in respect of repairs and any other accessories was limited to one year and for compressor it was up to 5 years. The dispute which Complainant has raised does not relate to compressor and so the 5 years’ warranty clause is not applicable.

            We find that several correspondences through e-mail have been filed out of these, it appears that one correspondence is dt.8.11.2015 where Complainant has written to the customer care of Godrej that he purchased the A.C. on 7.6.2014 and it went out of order within one year i.e. within warranty period. Further, he has alleged that he did not get the free service as stipulated in the terms and conditions. He has also alleged that the worker of the OPs asked for scaffolding so that they can climb to third floor. Now, the question arises that if the A.C. machine was out of order within one year why the specific date has not been mentioned. This mail was sent after about one year two months.

            Further, on perusal of the paragraph 2 of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has alleged that the A.C. machine went out of order within one month from the time of installation. It is stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint petition that the machine was installed on 28.6.2014. It is alleged in the complaint petition that over phone the matter was informed on 10.7.2014. But, he did not take any action, save and except the mechanic Mihir Mondal visited on 16.6.2015, i.e. after about one year of alleged visit of the Complainant to the service centre. So, it appears that Complainant reported the matter in writing after about one year not within one year as alleged by the Complainant, otherwise annexure C which Complainant has relied would not have been reflected 16.6.2015.

            Complainant has prayed for refund of the value of the payment made by him for purchasing the A.C.machine with 9% interest.

            We find that if a direction for repairing the A.C. machine if found defective, circumstances do not warrant of any compensation and litigation cost.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/599/2016 and the same is allowed on contest in part. OPs are directed to remove the defect of the A.C. machine of the Complainant within two months of this order. If the defects are not removed by the OPs within two months of this order they are directed to refund Rs.32,401/-, within another one month, in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order. Liabilities of the OPs is joint and several.