J U D G M E N T

(As per Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Member)

Brief facts:

1. It is the case of the Complainant that he purchased one Panasonic Air Conditioner bearing No. CU-YC 120KY3 on 04/04/2014 from Opposite Party 1, on04/04/2014.

    

2. That the said AC had a problem of gas leak thereby making to stop cooling from 15/06/2014.He complained to Opposite Party1 and the same was attended on 20/06/2014. The service person refilled the AC and the AC started cooling, but stopped again on 16/10/2014. It was again rectified the fault of gas leak by Opposite Party 1 on 18/10/2014. The Opposite Party 1 also asked the Complainant that they wanted to take the A.C. to their workshop. As the Complainant realized that there is a fault in the unit and thought that the said A.C. is of no use to him as the Opposite Party 2 failed to rectify the defect of said A.C. The A.C. is not working till date. So, the Complainant came before this court and prayed for replacement of the A.C.

    

3. The Opposite Party’s were duly served. The area service manager Mr. Shivnath Lohar appeared on 05/01/2015 and submitted that they are settling the matter amicably but failed to appear on future dates and also failed to file written version and marked ex-parte on 09/02/2015.

4. We have perused the complaint, affidavit in evidence, document relied by the Complainant, written argument and the oral arguments of the Complainant. Attorney of the Complainant Mrs. Aninha Ilda Da Cunha argued on behalf of the Complainant.

5. On perusal of the records and considering the oral arguments it is seen that there are two issues before this Forum whether there is any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party ? And whether the Complainant is entitled for replacement of A.C. and for compensation from Opposite Party?

6. The Opposite Party has not raised any defence before this Hon’ble Forum and failed to file written version to defend them. Also made submission that they are settling the matter and failed to appear for all future dates before this Hon’ble Forum nor settled the matter outside the court. It clearly means that the complaint filed by the Complainant is undisputed and unchallenged . The suggestion of Opposite Party for settling the matter before this Forum shows that they are at fault and there is deficiency on their part. The failure of the Opposite Party either for settlement or for replacement of A.C. proves that there is deficiency in service. Because of such a negligent act of the Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered mental tension and hardship. The wife of the Complainant was unable to bear the heat on account of her pregnancy.

7. We are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service committed by Opposite Party. This is the irresponsible and negligent behavior of Opposite Party.

In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed above, we pass the following:

O R D E R

1. The Opposite Party’s are jointly and severally directed to replace the said Panasonic A.C. with new one.

    

2. The Opposite Party’s are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the Complainant.

    

   In case the said amounts are not paid after the appeal period is over, the same will carry interest @12% till final payment.

    

   Pronounced in open court. Proceedings closed.