This complaint petition has been filed by complainant D.P.Thakur against Pawan Onida Arcade and one another o.ps for realizing of Rs. 40,000/- as cost of A.C. with 12 % interest pendentelite since date on purchase i.e 19-05-2014 till realization, Rs. 25,000/- for mental and physical torture and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The, brief, facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a A.C. of 1.5 tunes from Pawan Onida Arcade Muzaffarpur, Tilak Maidan Road on 19-05-2014 which was made by Daikin company o.p no.2 . The further case is that the machnic of the company came to install the aforesaid A.C. after purchase of 6 days who realize Rs. 7000/- as cost of installation, Rs. 3500/- was also expended in the purchase of wire. The aforesaid mechanic was unable to start A.C. so complainant give information of the above fact to the shopkeaper who sent another mechanic and the another mechanic started A.C. but technical problem continued in the A.C. for which the complainant informed on tollfree no.- CCU150315675, CCU150421328, CCU150315875, CCU15042138, CCU140620338. On the instruction of the o.p the complainant also contracted to Arnav Mitra and Rajeev Ranjan but result was zero. So, on 14-05-2015 the complainant informed to the company.
The o.p company appeared on 24-06-2015 and filed his w.s. O.p no.2 appeared on 24-06-2015 and submitted his w.s. on 30-11-2015 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition with cost. The o.p no.2 has raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction in his w.s. and has stated that this forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint petition. He has annexed copy of warranty card as annexure-1 which will be read as annexure-A for easy reference. It has also been stated that the defect in goods be ascertained in the manner of 13 (1)of Consumer Protection Act 1986 but complainant has not examined any expert witness. It has also been stated in para- 12 of the w.s. that the o.p no.2 on 26-08-2015 , in order to settle the present dispute on the suggestion of the learned forum and during pendency of the present complaint had voluntarily replaced the A.C. of the complainant to his full satisfaction where the complainant has signed as well as kind gesture on the part of o.p no.2. It has also been mentioned that there is no deficiency in service on his part.
O.P No.1 didn’t appear so vide order dated 06-03-2019 this forum proceeded Ex. Party against him.
Purchase of A.C. from o.p no.1 is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that o.p no.2 has changed the A.C. purchased by the complainant and supplied new A.C. o.p no.2 has also admitted the above fact in his written petition filed on 14-03-2019 and has also annexed paper of the settled docket as annexure 1 & 2, which will be read as annexure B & C for easy reference. The complainant has also an admitted the delivery of new A.C. on 26-08-2015 by o.p no.2 in place of old A.C. In para-4 of written argument he has claimed Rs. 25,000/- as physical and mental harassment, Rs. 10000/- as litigation cost and 12 % interest on Rs. 40,000/-, (Purchase cost) of A.C. Since 19-05-2014 to 26-08-2015.
On perusal of record, it transpires that o.p no.1 has no liability on exchanging of the defective A.C. He only sold the A.C of O.P. No.2, so there is no liability on his part.
O.p no.2 has accepted claim of the complainant by replacing New A.C. in place of old A.C. after filing of this complaint petition, so he has accepted the jurisdiction of this forum and as such he cannot raise the question on territorial jurisdiction on the basis of rule of estoppels. Since the o.p. has changed the new A.C. in place of old A.C. and the complainant has accepted the same, so he cannot raise interest on the value of the A.C. It is crystal clear that the o.p no.2 has admitted the defective quality of goods supplied and replaced the same by new as such he didn’t rebut the same. After filing of the complainant on 18-05-2015 he replaced A.C. on 26-08-2015 and as such compelled the complainant to file the complaint petition. In this way the complainant is entitled to get cost of the mental and physical harassment as well as litigation cost.
Accordingly, complaint petition is allowed and o.p no 2 is directed to pay Rs. 25000/- as physical & mental harassment, Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within two months from the date of order/, on failure to pay the aforesaid amount the o.p no. 2 shall be liable to pay with the awarded money 9 % p.a. interest from the date of filing of complaint petition till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.
