<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 398/2004 Filed on 19.10.2004<br /> Dated : 15.09.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Anslem.R, T.C 34/895, Valiyathoppu, Thiruvananthapuram – 8. <br /> (By adv. K.G. Hari)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.M/s Kulathunkal Electronics, Kulathunkal Buildings, Near Ayurveda College Junction, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1 represented by Mrs. Ashok Pothen.<br /> 2.M/s Voltas, Cooling & Appliances Business Division, Voltas House 'A', Dr. Babusaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033.<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02.02.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 12.08.2008, the Forum on 15.09.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The complainant in this case is Anslem and opposite parties are M/s Kulathunkal Electronics and M/s Voltas. The complainant purchased one 1.5 tonnes Voltas Split Air-conditioner and Logic 4 KVA stabilizer for a total price of Rs.30500/- from the 1st opposite party on 17.04.2004 as per Invoice No. 4507/A. This price includes installation charges of the air-conditioner at the residence of the complainant. On 17.04.2004, Mr. Roshan came to the complainant's house and collected Rs. 10500/- as advance. The technician of the 1st opposite party was entrusted with the work of instalment of the Air-conditioner by Mr. Roshan. The technician completed the work on that day itself. On 19.04.2004, Mr. Roshan again came to the complainant's house and collected Rs. 17500/- from him. The complainant informed him that the balance of Rs. 2500/- would be paid only after getting two cash receipts for the amounts paid, warranty cards and free service coupons. On 20.04.2004 also Mr. Roshan approached the complainant for the balance amount without the said documents. On his words that the non-remittance of the amount by the complainant would adversely affect his job, the complainant paid the balance amount also on the assurance that the documents would be delivered to him the next morning, i.e on 21.04.2004. As per the contract the 1st opposite party had the obligation to instal the air-conditioner at the premises of the complainant. In discharge of their obligation the Air-conditioner was installed by the technicians and representatives of the 1st opposite party in the house of the complainant as per the terms of purchase. The technicians demonstrated the working of the air-conditioner. From the very beginning the complainant felt that the cooling effect of air-conditioner was very poor and there was practically no cooling at all. The air-conditioner was not giving the desired and offered cooling. It had only the effect of a fan. On 26.04.2004 the complainant telephoned Mr. Roshan of the 1st opposite party explaining the malfunctioning of the air-conditioner and requested him to rectify its defects. Mr. Roshan inspected the air-conditioner with the help of one Mr. Sony at 5.00 p.m and was fully convinced that the cooling effect was practically nil. He summoned one more technician namely Mr. Babu from the 1st opposite party. All of them together inspected the air-conditioner at 7.00 p.m and explained their inability to correct the defect without the help of the management. Therefore the complainant on 27.04.2004 went to the office of the 1st opposite party and met one Mrs. Ashok Pothen who claimed to be the owner of the 1st opposite party. She promised that prompt action would be taken and the matter would be sorted out within a couple of days itself. Repeated requests of the complainant to rectify the defect of the air-conditioner fell only into the deaf ears of the 1st opposite party. On 31.05.2004 the complainant sent a registered letter to the 1st opposite party to take immediate action on the matter. The 1st opposite party did not do anything notwithstanding their obligation to rectify the defect. Again on 24.06.2004 the complainant sent another letter requesting the 1st opposite party to rectify the Air-conditioner. Thereafter on 20.07.2004 the complainant complained to the 2nd opposite party through a registered letter. A copy of the letter with postal receipt is produced herewith. On 23.07.2004 the complainant again went to the office of the 1st opposite party and met Mr. Sony who visited the house of the complainant along with a technician of the 2nd opposite party who on inspection advised that the installation was fully faulty and reinstallation had to be made as per the guidelines of the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties promised that everything would be put in order within a couple of days. But, the opposite parties have not done anything till 05.08.2004 on which day the complainant again sent another registered letter to the 1st opposite party. Even after receipt of this letter the opposite party has not done anything for the redressal of the grievance of this complainant. On 24.08.2004 the complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the opposite parties requesting them to pay an amount of Rs. 47330/-. Inspite of the receipt of this notice the opposite parties have not cared to repay the said amount. Hence this complaint. <br /> In this case the complainant was examined as PW1 and he has produced 8 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P8. The opposite parties are exparte. The complainant has produced sufficient documentary evidence and oral evidence to prove his case. Ext. P1 is the copy of bill dated 17.04.2004 for Rs. 30500/- issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext. P2 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext. P3 is the copy of lawyer's notice dated 24.08.2004 demanding the repayment of the price of the air-conditioner. Ext. P4 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party on 20.07.2004. Ext. P5 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext. P6 are the copies of acknowledgement cards signed by the opposite parties. Ext. P7 is the machine installation coupon of 2nd opposite party. Ext. P8 is the free service coupons issued by the 1st opposite party. <br /> <br /> The complainant had purchased the air conditioner on 17.04.2004. From the very beginning the complainant felt that the cooling effect of air-conditioner was very poor and there was practically no cooling at all. On 26.04.2004 the complainant informed the opposite party the malfunctioning of the air-conditioner and requested the 1st opposite party to rectify the defects. The efforts made by the technicians to rectify the defect of the air conditioner failed. And thereafter the complainant several times approached the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the air-conditioner or refund the price. But the opposite parties never turned up to settle the matter. Repeated requests and notice of the complainant was not cared by the opposite parties. The warranty card issued by the opposite party shows that there was 1 year warranty. The defect occurred during the warranty period. The documents on record which are not controverted by the opposite parties prove that the defects in the air conditioner had developed from the very beginning of its purchase itself, which is enough for us to hold that the air conditioner has very serious defects and the very purpose of the air conditioner is not served. Hence the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect of the air-conditioner or replace the same or refund the purchase price. In this case the opposite parties had sufficient opportunity to settle the matter. But they did not care it. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration it is found that the act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to give compensation to the complainant. Hence this Forum allow the complaint. <br /> In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 30500/- to the complainant. And the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 1500/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. After the acceptance of the above mentioned amounts, the complainant shall return the air conditioner in dispute to the opposite parties. Time for compliance one month. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th September 2008.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD :PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 398/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Anslem.R<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of bill dated 17.04.2004 for Rs. 30500/- issued by <br /> the 1st opposite party. <br /> P2 - Photocopy of notice dated 31.05.2004 issued by the <br /> complainant to the 1st opposite party.<br /> P3 - Photocopy of lawyer's notice dated 24.08.2004.<br /> P4 - Photocopy of notice issued by the complainant to 2nd opposite <br /> party dated 20.07.2004. <br /> P5 - Photocopy of notice issued by the complainant to 1st opposite <br /> party dated 05.08.2004. <br /> P6 - Photocopy of acknowledgement card signed by the 1st <br /> opposite party.<br /> P6(a) - Photocopy of acknowledgement card signed by the 2nd <br /> opposite party.<br /> P7 - Photocopy of machine installation coupon of 2nd opposite <br /> party.<br /> P8 - Free service coupon issued by 1st opposite party. <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />