Order No. 19 dt. 26/05/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a retired govt. employee and he purchased three A.C. machines from o.p. no.3. The said purchased was made in the year 2013 and during that period there was no need of service of A.C. machine and after the onset of summer it was found that out of three A.C. machines two were functioning normally and one was not functioning properly. The complainant thereafter informed through helpline by phone as well as made contact with service centre. On receiving the information one representative of the company visited the house of the complainant to check the machine and he filled gas in the machine. He did not perform the free services to other machines due to lack of time. The complainant thereafter faced further problem and informed the o.ps. through helpline. The said trouble took place during the warranty period. After the expiry of the warranty period the complainant while found there was some defect he informed the o.ps. and the representative of the company visited and took his remuneration. Since recurring defect arose in the said machine the complainant did not use the bed room whereby the machine was installed. Because of such continuous harassment the complainant finding no other alternative had to file this case praying for replacement of the defective machine as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. no.1 is ready to replace the said A.C. machine free of cost. On the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for necessary may be passed.
In spite of receipt of notices o.p. nos.2 and 3 did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the A.C. machine manufactured by o.p. no.1.
- Whether there was any defect in the said machine.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased three A.C. machines and out of those machines one was found defective and it was brought to the notice of o.p. no.1 who sent one representative but the said mechanic failed to remove the defect. Subsequently the said machine created problem and the complainant informed the o.p. no.1 but no effective step was taken. Because of such recurring defect in the said machine the complainant felt inconvenience and he filed this case praying for replacement of the said machine as well as compensation.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that the complainant failed to prove that there was any defect in the said machine and if there would have been any manufacturing defect the complainant could not be run the said machine for some months. Ld. lawyer for o.p. no.1 also emphasized that o.p. no.1 is agreeable to replace the said machine since the complainant did not cooperate with o.p. no effective step was taken from the side of o.p. no.1. In view of the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for passing necessary order.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased three A.C. machines manufactured by o.p. no.1 and out of those one machine was found defective and two machines were running properly. The complainant brought it to the notice of o.p. no.1 for removal of the defect but no effective step was taken. Ultimately the complainant had no other alternative but to file this case for redressal of his grievance. It is an admitted fact that o.p. no.1 agreed that the A.C. machine can be replaced by o.p. no.1 free of cost. In view of such development between the parties to this case we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get replacement of the said machine and for harassment he will also be entitled to get the compensation. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.527/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against other o.ps. The o.p. no.1 is directed to replace the A.C. machine in question and is also directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
