Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 29.02.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the A.C., Stabilizer installation charge of Rs. 36,375/- ( Rs. Thirty Six Thousand Three hundred Seventy Five only ) along with interest @ 20% from the date of purchase till the date of refund.
- To pay Rs. 90,000/- ( Rs. Ninety thousand only ) as Compensation.
- To pay Rs. 55,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Five thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The complainant has asserted following facts in complaint petition :-
The complainant has asserted that she has purchased one Career A.C. split 1.5 Dura Cool plus from opposite party no. 1 namely Aditya Vision after total payment of Rs. 36,375/- on 07.06.2012 which includes the cost of aforesaid split A.C. power stabilizer and A.C. installation charge. The aforesaid A.C. was installed by technician of opposite parties but it was not working properly as water was oozing out from the wall of A.C. and flow of water from accessories and as such the A.C. was not working properly. Thereafter the technician of opposite party no. 1 visited the house of the complainant for rectification of the defects of the aforesaid A.C. on 13.07.2012 and 17.10.2012 and stated that the defect can not be cured and advised her to exchange the aforesaid A.C. from opposite party no. 1.
It is further case of the complainant that on several occasion she has approached opposite party no. 1 for rectification of the defect and lastly on 07.08.2012 she has given a written request to opposite party no. 1 regarding her grievances but opposite party no. 1 has not taken any steps regarding the grievance of the complainant.
On behalf of opposite party no. 3 a reply has been filed denying the aforesaid allegation of the complainant. Opposite party no. 3 has stated that on all occasion after inspection by service cell the unit was working in good condition except condensation in service value and water formation due to high humidity at location of outdoors unit.
It has been further asserted that during visit of technician on 17.10.2012 it was found that there was only some water leakage and relocation of outdoor unit was advised which was not accepted by complainant hence there is no deficiency in service of opposite parties.
It has been further asserted that the complainant has failed to mention any specific date or day regarding complaint lodged with the opposite parties.
From the judicial record it appear that when after issuing notice on opposite party no. 1 and 2 they did not appeared and the registered notice did not returned then vide order dated 10.06.2013 the Tamila was declared valid and after several adjournments when opposite party no. 1 and 2 did not appear then the case has been heard in absence of them.
From order sheet dated 30.01.2015 and 01.06.2015 it appears that on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 it was stated that opposite party no. 3 will talk to opposite party no. 1 and 2 and try to redress the grievance of the complainant but it appears that when the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by opposite party no. 3 then this case has been heard and this order is being passed.
So far annexures are concerned, from annexure – 2 it appears that the aforesaid A.C. including stabilizer etc. was purchased on 07.06.2012 from opposite party no. 1 after paying price of Rs. 36,375/-. Annexure – 3 is the report of service center and annexure – 4 is the application given to opposite party no. 1 for redressal of grievance of the complainant which appears to be received by opposite party no. 1.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party no. 3 and have narrated the facts asserted by both the parties in forgoing paragraphs.
From bare perusal of the reply of opposite party no. 3 it is crystal clear that there was defect in the A.C. when the technician visited and when the defect could not be removed then instead of removing the defect complainant was advised to change the place of A.C.
It is needless to say that it is the wish of the complainant to fix the A.C. on the place of their liking. It is not easy to fix the split A.C. any where because prior to fixing the A.C. some arrangements has to be done for smooth functioning of the A.C.
It further transpires that at the time of hearing of this case, the opposite party no. 3 has taken time for redressal of the grievance of the complainant after talking with opposite party no. 1 and 2 but as per statement of the complainant it was done with sole purpose of harassing the complainant which proves the intention of opposite parties.
The complainant has purchased the A.C. in the year 2006 and she is still pursuing this case even after 10 years before this Forum but the opposite parties did not redressed her grievance despite assurance before us. This fact clearly discloses the real intention of the opposite parties in harassing the consumer i.e. complainant. This fact definitely discloses deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
It goes without saying that opposite party no. 1 and 2 have not filed a chit of paper denying the allegation of the complainant hence we have no option but to accept the facts asserted by the complainant against them.
Though there are 3 opposite parties but it is crystal clear that the complainant has purchased the split A.C. vide annexure – 2 from opposite party no. 1.
Hence we direct the opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs. 36,375/- to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till the final payment is made.
The complainant is also directed that at the time of receiving the aforesaid amount the complainant will return the old split A.C. to the opposite party no. 1 if the same is in her custody.
Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
We want make it clear that it will be open for the opposite party no. 1 to realize the aforesaid amount in due proportion from other opposite parties as all opposite parties are responsible for the plight of the complainant.
Thus this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
