Date of filing :- 21/11/2012
Date of Order :- 07/04/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 39 of 2012.
Muralidhar Pattnaik, aged about 50(fifty) years, son of late Lingaraj Pattnaik of Bargarh, Subash Nagar, Ward No. 14(fourteen), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh, Odisha ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
M/s Chandan Brother, through Amit Agrawal, son of Subash Agrawal R/o N.H.6, Near Private Bus-Stand, Goshala, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri S.K.Sarangi, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri U.K.Sahu, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: 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. 07/04/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .
The present complaint pertains to defective goods and deficiency in service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Its brief history is as follows:-
The Complainant has purchased a Hitachi Split Air Conditioner Machine Model- 1.5 Ton Sugol (RAU 518HSDD) SE120064609 (IDU) 121C22729 (ODU) along with Auto Take Stabilizer 4 KVA for a sum of Rs 43,700/-(Rupees forty three thousand seven hundred)only from the authorized dealer Opposite Party No.1(one) vide invoice No. CB/BGH/RI-169 Dt. 14/05/2012 with warranty of one year and assured for free repairing or replacement of new one in case the sold product found defunct within one year of purchase. The Opposite Party have issued the Complainant the warranty card and invoice of the said A.C during purchase of it. The said AC was installed at the Complainant's residence by the Opposite Party's authorized Mechanic on payment of installation charges of Rs 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only as per the company's scheme. But on Dt 06/07/2012, the said AC started defunct and did not function within the warranty period. Immediately, the Complainant lodged complaint before the Opposite Party to which the Opposite Party given the Registration No. 12090701314 to the Complainant with an assurance for repair of the defective Air Conditioner. Since Dt 06/07/2012, the Complainant visited to the Opposite Party and requested time and again for proper repairing or replacement of a new one Air Conditioner or otherwise refund of the cost but the Opposite Party avoiding the same turn dump and deep to the request of the Complainant. Inspite of repeated approach to the Opposite Party since 06/07/2012 the Air Conditioner has not been repaired by the Opposite Party till date. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed this case claiming either to repair the Air Conditioner Machine properly or replace the said with a new one or refund the price of the said machine along with compensation of Rs 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only for mental agony, harassment and damages.
In order to strengthen this case, the Complainant relies on the documents relates to purchase of Air Conditioner.
In response to this, the Opposite Party in his version though did not deny the purchase of the Air Conditioner and defect of Air Conditioner but took the stand that Opposite Party gave prompt service to the Complainant on his complain by informing the same to the company and the company technician visited the house of the Complainant and found that in the said Air Conditioner the PCB was not functioning properly. So the company technician with the permission of the company want to change the PCB which is within the warranty period for one year. When after receiving the new PCB from the company, the company technician went to the house of the Complainant to replace the PCB but the Complainant could not co-operate the technician to replace the PCB for smooth functioning of the said Air Conditioner. So according to Opposite Party he has not done any act which amount to deficiency of service to the Complainant. Opposite Party further submitted that he is ready and willing to replace the PCB of the said Air Conditioner now also. Further submission of the Opposite Party is that the case is not maintainable on the ground of Non-joinder of necessary party. Hence the manufacturing company should be a party.
Heard both the parties and perused the documents available in the case record. After perusal, this Forum found that, the Opposite Party has admitted must of the allegation of the Complainant as follows:-
Opposite Party admitted the purchase of Air Conditioner by the Complainant from him which is further proved from the copy of the retail invoice filed by the Complainant.
Opposite Party has admitted that he is the authorized dealer of the Company.
The warranty period for the Air Conditioner is also admitted by the Opposite Party which is further proved through the warranty book let filed by the Complainant which is issued by the Opposite Party infavour of the Complainant.
Opposite Party has admitted the defect in the PCB of the Air Conditioner after two months of the purchase and is the major component for the functioning of the Air Conditioner.
Opposite Party has also admitted that the Complainant intimated on Dt.06/07/2012 about the defect of the said Air Conditioner to which the he has given the register No.12090701314.
So the admitted facts need not be required to be proved again. The only stands taken by the Opposite Party that he send the company mechanic to the house of the Complainant to change the PCB of the Air Conditioner but the Complainant did not co-operate him can not be believable as the Opposite Party has not prove this with any documentary or oral evidence before the Forum. Onus lies on him to prove his stand. It is the responsibility of the Opposite Party to give after sale service to the customer if defect occurred within the warranty period. Because in the instant case purchase occurred by the Complainant who is a cardiac patient revealed from the documents with some hope and aspiration for his self comfort which are not full filled and the Complainant/Purchaser suffered from the transaction to a considerable high amount frustrating the whole purpose of transaction. After about two months of its purchase if there is any defect will be started how the people should have faith on the said company. In the instant case the Opposite Party should have maintained the transparency while selling their products.
Hence gross negligence and deficiency in service lies with the Opposite Party and he is liable to compensate the Complainant from what he suffered.
The Opposite Party is directed to replace the defective Air Conditioner with a new one of the same brand and specification and to pay Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation for mental agony harassment and litigation cost to the Complainant within thirty days from the date of Order, failing which 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum shall carry on the Original price of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs.33,480/-(Rupees thirty three thousand four hundred eighty)only and compensation awarded amount till the actual date of realization.
The Complainant is directed to handover the defective Air Conditioner immediately to the Opposite Party, at the time of receiving of the New one of the same brand and specification.
The complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
