In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  43 / 2009.

1)                   Sudarsan Kumar De,

            Flat No. 319, Holy Nest, 7, T.N. Biswas Road, Kolkata-35.                       ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Manager, Rohit Refrigeration Company,

11A, Temple Street, Kolkata-700072.

2)                   Parthasarathy Chakraborty, Dy. Manager (Sales), ETA General Private Ltd.,

Flat no.6, 2^nd Floor, Chatrakoot Building,

230A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020.

3)                   M/s. ETA General Private Limited,

Flat No. 517, 5^th Floor, Krishna Building,

224, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020.

4)                   Mr. Suresh Kumar Bandi, General Manager(Marketing),

M/s. ETA General Private Limited, Seethakathi Chambers,

5^th Floor, 688, Anna Salai, Chennai-600006.                                            ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   30    Dated  17/05/2012.

The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Sudarsan Kumar De against the o.ps. Rohit Refrigeration Company and others. In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that complainant being convinced by advertisement of o.ps. purchased a air-conditioning machine from o,.p. no.2 costing Rs.29,700/- plus Rs.1500/- towards installation charges on 4.2.06, with one year warranty and thereafter, from the second week of May i.e. within the 3 months from the date of purchase of the aforesaid goods started mal-functioning which was repaired by o.p. no.2 in course of time. Again after 3 months from the date of 1^st repair i.e. from the 3^rd week of August, 2006 the A.C. machine started malfunctioning again and ultimately cooling effect reduced to almost zero with more often problems. This time also the goods in question were repaired by o.p. no.2. But once again aforesaid machine went out of order on 20.10.06 i.e. just after 2 months from 2nd repair and after 5 months from 1^st repair, which caused great embarrassment and mental agony to the complainant.

            The incident was again intimated to o.p. nos.2, 3 and 4 and o.p. no.2 directly blamed the complainant citing some arbitrary reasons and o.ps. wanted to investigate the matter but complainant was not willing to allow them to continue further experimentation with the said machine and requested o.ps. in writing to take back the machine and refund the entire cost of the machine, including the cost of installation i.e. Rs.1500/- but all in vain. Hence, the complaint case has been filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            After scrutinizing vividly all the documents brought before this Forum and hearing every nook and corner of the cases of the parties to the instant case it is observed that it is an admitted fact that complainant purchased an air-conditioning machine from o.ps. and it is also further admitted position that the air-conditioning machine in question was giving trouble firstly within the 3 months of purchase. Thereafter, after 6 months the machine in question was out of order and moreover, after 8 months from the date of purchase the aforesaid machine became out of order once again. It is also admitted position that air-conditioning machine had warranty of one year and the machine was repaired by o.ps. first two times within warranty period.

            In view of the above findings and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record we find that the air-conditioning machine had some inherent manufacturing defect and law suggests that this action on the part of o.ps. is a gross negligence and/or deficiency for not refunding the money to complainant on demand while defects cropped up thrice within the warranty period and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            The petition of complaint is allowed on contest in part with cost against all o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.29,700/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred) only to  complainant and o.ps. are further directed to pay to complainant Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Complainant is directed to return to o.ps. the air-conditioning machine in question lying with him within 30 days from the date of realization of the total awarded sum as ordered above at the cost of complainant, in default, law will take its own course.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties

        ____Sd-_____                    ____Sd-____                    ____Sd-________

          MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT