THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 348/2014

Dated this the 10^th  day of August 2016

                       (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                               :  President)

                       Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                                      : Member

                       Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB                           : Member                          

ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member:

          This complaint was filed on 04.07.2014, against the service deficiency of opposite parties.  The brief facts of the case is that complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party which  was manufactured by 1^st opposite party.  The same is having five years warranty from 02.04.2011.  In 2013 the complainant herein sought the assistance of the opposite parties for servicing the Air conditioner which carried out by OP2’s person, meanwhile the frond grill of the air Conditioner broken from the hands of the technician.  The technician promised immediate replacement of the same and took the broken grill with him.  Thereafter they did not turn up.  Complainant purchased the above Air conditioner by spending Rs.20,400/-.  Now the A/C looks very ugly.  Some technician from the 2^nd opposite party came with grill to replace it, but it was not suitable for the Air Conditioner.  The petitioner was under the belief that opposite parties are reputed firms who will fulfill their assurance.   But now  he realized that the opposite party were indulged with unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  In this regard complainant sustained mental agony and financial loss.  Thus he issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties to replace the Air conditioner.  Now the above petition is filed for replacement and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  Hence this complaint.

            Notice were issued to both parties both of them appeared and 2^nd opposite party filed version.  1^st opposite party has not filed version hence set ex-parte. 2^nd Opposite parties version contains the following things, firstly petition is not maintainable  secondly the 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of 1^st opposite party.  All the electronic and electrical products sold by the 2^nd opposite party has to be serviced by the service centre provided by the 1^st opposite party.  The second  opposite party has no liability regarding warranty of the product.  It is the duty of the 1^st opposite party to provide warranty in case of manufacturing defects.  2^nd opposite party admits that petitioner herein had purchased an Air Conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party which is having one year replacement and four year service warranty.  The periodical service has to be done by the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has no control  over the service centre,  it is under the supervision and control of 1^st opposite party. The second opposite party disputes the alleged incident by their technician.  2^nd opposite party states that, the above grill was broken from the hands of petitioner alone, that is why he is not able to provide the name and number of the technician.  2^nd opposite party has no liability to replace the Air Conditioner, if at all it has to be replaced, that has to be done by 1^st opposite party.  There is no cause of action  to file the above petition, that itself shows the lack of bonafide on the part of the complainant.  Hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

Points to be considered.

1)Whether the petition is maintainable or not?

2)Is there any service deficiency or illegal trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

3)If yes what are the reliefs?

     In this matter complainant examined as PW1, Exts.A1 to A3 marked.  1^st opposite party was set exparte and 2^nd opposite party has not adduced any evidence.  Ext.A1 is the Cash bill issued by 2^nd opposite party, Ext.A2 is the service request issued by 1^st opposite party, Ext.A3 is the Lawyer notice.

Point No.1&2:- The second opposite party alleges that the petition is not maintainable, on the  version they admit the purchase of the Air conditioner from them on 02.04.2011 Ext.A1 Cash bill establish the claim of the petitioner.  Hence it can be held that petition is maintainable .  Complainant says that  he booked for a periodical service in the year 2013 a technician from the 2^nd opposite party came to the house of the petitioner to service the Air Conditioner,  while conducting repairing the grill of the Air conditioner became broken from the technician and he promised that, it will be replaced immediately and he took away the broken grill.  Afterwards two technicians came with grill but it was not suitable to the Air conditioner, thereafter they did not turned up to cure the defect.  Complainant alleges that, this is a clear case of illegal trade practice.  The 2^nd opposite party states that servicing of the product is the liability of manufacturer and they are conducting customer service centers through out India hence the manufacturer is liable to meet the claim of the petitioner.  The complainant herein produced Ext.A2 the service request by 1^st opposite party dated 20.11.2013 and they charged Rs.450/- towards the service charge also, which shows that complainant entrusted his Air Conditioner with 1^st opposite party and they collected Rs.450/- as service charge also.  The opposite parties never disputes Ext.A1 & A2.   From the Ext.A2 it can be came into a conclusion that the 1^st opposite party is liable to carry out the service.  During the time of service any loss sustained to the product as the result of the negligence on the part of technician, that has to be replaced or indemnified by the manufacturer because the master is liable for the acts of its servant.  In this situation 1^st opposite party is liable to rectify the mistakes committed by his servant.  So the fault committed by technician during the time of servicing has to be answered by the 1^st opposite party .  Thus the damage caused to the petitioner is to be compensated by the 1^st opposite party alone.  This can be treated as a service deficiency on the part of 1^st opposite party.  In the light of the above discussion 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner .  In the result the above petition is allowed.

            Therefore we direct the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as the compensation for service deficiency and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only ) as cost of the proceedings.  Comply the order with within one month from the date of receiving the copy of the order.

Dated this the 10^th day of August 2016.

Date of filing : 04.07.2014

SD/-MEMBER                                          SD/- PRESIDENT                                 SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainants:

A1.Cash bill amount of Rs.20,400/- dtd.02.04.2011.

A2. Service requestdated20.11.2013.

A3. Lawyer notice dtd.09.05.2014.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.Prakash(Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT