Date of filing :- 05/04/2014

Date of Order :- 11/03/2015

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 05 of 2014

Suraj Dash, S/o Basanta Bihari Dash, aged about 28(twenty eight) years, Mahanty Pada, At/Po/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

1. Managing Director, Carrier Air Conditioning and Regrigeration Ltd, Kharki Dual Port, Gurgaon-122001, Hariyana.

2. Proprietor, Chandan Brothers, Infront of Goshala, N.H.6, Bargarh Md. Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd, Ist Floor Pearl Tower, Plot No.51, Sector-32, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. ..... ..... Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant:- Sri B.Panda, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with others Advocates.

and Opposite Party No.3(three)

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Ex-parte.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt. 11/03/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .

Fact of the case:-

Complainant named Suraj Dash S/o Basant Bihari Dash a resident of Mohantypada, At/Po/Ps/Dist- Bargarh files this complaint against the designated Opposite Party No.1(one) Managing Director, Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd., Opposite Party No.2(two), Proprietor, Chandan Brothers and Opposite Party No.3(three) M.D., Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd., alleging deficiency of service and prayed for suitable compensation for the problems he faced on purchase of one Air conditioner from the Opposite Parties.

Complainant relies on the following documents to establish his case which he filed before the Forum.

1. Xerox details invoice.

2. Xerox of warranty card.

Initially the complaint was filed against Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) only, later Opposite Party No.3(three) appeared and wished to be made a party in this case as the Air conditioner in issue was sold by this Opposite Party No.3(three) company and not by Opposite Party No.1(one). At that time Opposite Party No.3(three) also requested to strike out the Opposite Party No.1(one) from the Complaint not being a necessary party. This petition was allowed and M.D., Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd been included as Opposite Party No.3(three).

Opposite Party No.2(two) duly noticed did not respond to the summons and it seemed that he is not interested to contest his case and got ex-parte on Dt.16/09/2014.

On Dt.03/02/2015 Complainant files a memo that the Opposite Party No.3(three) who got included to the complaint solved his issue by installing a new Air conditioner to the complete satisfaction of the Complainant and hence do not want to proceed against Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No3(three). Opposite Party No 1(one) and Opposite Party No.3(three) also files memo on the similar accord hence it seems that the main issue of the case is already been taken care off being attended by the Opposite Parties with full satisfaction of the Complainant. The document satisfaction letter issued by the Complainant on Dt.12/01/2015 proves the contention and admitted by the Forum.

A hearing on merit against Opposite Party No. 2(two) was done on Dt 03/02/2015 and as Opposite Party No. 2(two) got set ex-parte. Complainant submitted his grievance against Opposite Party No. 2(two) only from this hearing and perusal of case record and documents it comes out that Opposite Party No.2(two) is the dealer who sold the Air conditioner to the Complainant. It also appears that the Complainant was not aware of the actual manufacture at the time of purchase and when problem occured contacted wrong manufacturing company to solve the issue for which his issue got delayed attention for the fault of Opposite Party No.2(two) who apparently did not disclosed the identity of actual manufacturer to the consumer and it is only after institution of this Complainant and when Opposite Party No.3(three) got suo moto included through filing of petition before the Forum Complainant got knowledge of the same and soon his issue got duly addressed by this new Opposite Party No.3(three) the actual manufacture.

Under the circumstances the Opposite Party No. 2(two) is liable for deficiency of service.

1. For non disclosure of actual manufacturer of the Air conditioner at the time of purchase.

2. Not helping the consumer to got his problem properly addressed after Complaint made to him.

3. Selling another manufacturer's item on the name of another manufacture staking the reputation of the manufacturing companies and creating troubles for consumers and public.

    

   - O R D E R -

1. Opposite Party No. 2(two) is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only to the Complainant as compensation for all trouble and harassment faced by the Complainant within one month of the order, failing which he will pay interest to the award amount @ 12% (twelve percent) per annum till actual realization.

2. Opposite Party No. 1(one) and Opposite Party No. 3(three) are exonerated from all the allegations made against them by the Complainant.

Disposed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

(Smt. Anjali Behera )

     M e m b e r.

            I agree,                                         I agree, 

(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)           (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

         P r e s i d e n t.                              M e m b e r.