Judgment : Dt.21.3.2017
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under Sec.12 of C.P.Act by Sri Dipanjan Si, so of Shri Dipak Kumar Si, residing at Gopalpur, P.O.- Sarkarpool, P.S.- Maheshtala, Kolkata-700 143, alleging deficiency in providing service on the part of the (1) M/s Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., (2) Voltas and (3) M/s Climate Control technology.
The Complainant, by filing the instant petition of complaint has stated that he purchased one Voltas 18 VLY/1.5 ton inverter split air conditioner indoor and another air conditioner out door of the said capacity against a consideration of Rs.42,500/- in respect of which invoice No.DH/SA/1516/17853 dt.4.3.2016 was issued by the OP No.1 who is the Branch of Sales emporium as well as authorized agent of OP No.2, the manufacturer of the said A.C. The Complainant has further stated that the OP No.1 delivered the said A.C. to the Complainant’s address and on 9.3.2016 the same was installed by the authorized person of the OP No.2. It is the specific allegation of the Complainant that the said A.C. could not function properly for which he lodged complaint through e-mail with the OP No.2 on 10.4.2016 and 12.4.2016. In reply the OP No.2 also sent e-mail to the Complainant. The Complainant further stated that in the meantime he informed the OP No.3 who is the authorized service centre of the OP No.2 regarding non-functioning of the said A.C. and receiving such information they said their authorized person to provide service in respect of the said A.C. on 18.4.2016. Subsequently, on 24.4.2016 the Complainant again lodged complaint through e-mail stating that from 21.4.2016 the cooling functioning of the said A.C. has been deteriorated again. In respect to that complaint the OP No.2 sent e-mail dt.24.4.2016 to the Complainant expressing regret for the inconvenience caused to him and advised to contact with their Area Sales Manager, Mr. Ajay Sengupta. The Complainant on 25.4.2016 sent another e-mail to the OP No.2 stating that the said Mr. Ajay Sengupta was not associated with the OP No.2 and requested to send their authorised person to solve the problem. Ultimately, on 5.5.2016 an authorised person of OP No.3 provided service to the A.C. by replacing some parts of it and made the said A.C. free of defect. However, the Complainant again found that the said A.C. developed defect and accordingly lodged complaint to the OP No.2 on 11.6.2016 through e-mail. On 16.6.2016, the Complainant again sent an e-mail to the OP No.2 and on reply the OP No.2 advised the Complainant to contact one of their authorized person for solution. The authorized person sent one service technician of the OP No.3 who attended the out-door unit of the A.C. and it was replaced by another unit on 20.6.2016. Subsequently, on 30.9.2016, the said A.C. including the out-door unit was completely stopped. Further, on 5.10.2016 the Complainant’s father visited the show room of the OP No.1 wherefrom he learnt that the particular services of Voltas A.C. have manufacturing defects. On 6.10.2016 the Complainant sent an e-mail to the OP No.1 & 2 for refund of consideration amount of the said A.C. as well as to remove the said A.C. there-from but no reply was received.
Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP No.1 & 2 to refund the consideration amount of Rs.42,500/- and installation charges of Rs.690/- totaling of Rs.43,190/- with 18% p.a. interest till the date of payment, to direct the OP No.1 & 2 to pay compensation Rs. 50000/- and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 15000/-
The Complainant have annexed photo-stat copies of tax invoice, money receipts dt.4.3.2016 and 9.3.2016, e-mail dt.10.4.2016, 24.4.2016, 25.4.2016, 16.6.2016, 6.10.2016 from the end of the Complainant, e-mails dt.13.4.2016, 11.6.2016, 17.6.2016 from OP No.2, service reports dt.18.4.2016, 5.5.2016, 20.6.2016.
The OP No.1 contested the case and filed written version denying all the allegations made out in the complaint petition save and except the matters of records stating inter alia the Complainant purchased one air conditioner on 4.3.2016 at a price of Rs.42,500/- by making cash payment. It is stated by the OP No.1 that the Complainant was fully satisfied with the demonstration and thereafter agreed to purchase the A.C. The OP No.1 has further stated that the problem of non-functioning of the said A.C. reported to them on 10.4.2016 in respect of which the OP No.1 communicated the complaint to the manufacturer and the said manufacturer sent their mechanic for repairing who (the OP No.3 being service centre) repaired the said machine upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The OP No.1 also mentioned that it is the manufacturer and not the dealer who is liable to keep the machine defect free within the warranty period and therefore the dealer has no role to play regarding repairing or replacement of the machine. The OP No.1 further stated that being dealer the OP No.1 forwarded the complaint immediately after receiving the same to the OP No.2 & 3 who promptly attended the said A.C. The O.P.No.1 specifically mentioned that though the Complainant raised the allegation regarding defects in the A.C. but failed to mention the nature of alleged defects. According to the OP No.1 that the OP No.1 is in no way liable either for repair of the same machine or replacement of the same. Accordingly, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.
The OP No.2 also appeared and contested the case by filing written version stating, inter alia, the Complainant purchased a voltas made A.C. on 4.3.2016 which afterwards repaired by replacing condenser unit but the Complainant on repeated occasions requested the authorized service centre of the OP No.2 namely Climate Control Technology (OP No.3 herein) to take the said A.C. for workshop repairing. The OP No.2 prays for a spell of time so that they can inspect the said A.C. thoroughly and if the A.C. is found defective in manufacturing ground then the OP No.2 will replace the entire unit of A.C. by a modified/higher version of the A.C. in good gesture.
The Complainant adopted the petition of complaint as affidavit-in-evidence. The OP Nos.1 & 2 cross examined the Complainant to which the Complainant put reply. The OP No.1 also adopted their written version as their evidence on affidavit.
Points for determination
Is there deficiency in providing service by the OPs.
Is the Complainant entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Both points are taken up together for consideration for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admitted position is that the Complainant purchased one Voltas 18VLH/1.5 ton inverter split A.C. indoor and another A.C. outdoor of said capacity and after a short spell of time from the installation of the same the Complainant lodged complaint regarding defective functioning of the said machine for which the OP No.2 and OP No.3 sent some service technicians who attended and repaired the said A.C. It appears from the three service reports dt. 18.4.2016, 5.5.2016 and 20.6.2016 that the service technicians repaired the said A.C. by replacing condenser and thereafter the total out-door unit by new ones and made the A.C. o.k. The Complainant thereafter also alleged that the said A.C. bore manufacturing defects although no authentic report has been filed corroborating the version of manufacturing defect brought forward to us.
On perusal of written version filed by the OP No.2 that the OP No.2 is agreeable to replace the allegedly defective unit by new one even by higher version. If the OP No.2 finds it defective after thorough investigation. However, in course of hearing the authorized representative of the OP No.2 has candidly submitted that the OP No.2 is ready and willing to replace the allegedly defective A.C. unit by new even higher version the same free of cost.
The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Kinetic Eng. Ltd. and others VS Ms. Rahul Roy and Ors is not applicable to the instant case since the same is of different context as the instant case bears no allegation of false representation in respect of the goods in questions.
However, taking the submission of OP No.2 has made during the course of hearing we are inclined to direct the OP No.2 & 1 (since OP No-1 is authorized dealer of the OP no-2) to replace the allegedly defective entire A.C. unit by new one which is not less than the purchased version of the A.C. Considering the circumstances, we are of opinion not to pass any order towards cost of compensation.
In the result, the petition of complaint succeed in part.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/491/2016 is allowed in part on contest against the OPs without cost. The OP No.1 & 2 is directed to replace the defective A.C. unit by a new one which is not less than the purchased version of the A.C. within 15 days of this order. Considering the circumstance we are of opinion not to pass any order towards cost and compensation.
