OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBERS .
Consumer Complaint No. 10 of 2017
Date of Filling :- 25.01.2017
Date of Order :- 28.11.2017.
Sri Bidyadhar Sahu, aged about 62 yrs.
S/O.Late Anam Sahu,
At- House No.-MIG-1/41,P.O/P.S/Dist.-Angul.
____________________Complainant.
Vrs.
- Prop., Jay Hanuman Enterprises,
Tin No-21711306101,Sanjibani Market, Angul,
02. SHARP Business System (India ) Limited,
At-214-221,Ausal Tower, 38 Neheru Palace, New Delhi-110019
03. Hindustan Refrigeration,
F.C.I Road,Nalco Nagar,Near Swagat Hotel,
Dist.-Angul,Odisha,PIN-759145
For the complainant :- Self
For the opp.party No.1:- A.K.Mishra & associates (Advs.)
For the opp.party No.2:- None
For the opp.party No.3:- None
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri K.K.Mohanty, Member
The petitioner has filed this case with prayer to direct the opp.parties to refund the cost of defective Air Conditioner or replace a new one instead of the defective one.
2. The petitioner’s case runs thus:-
The petitioner has purchased the A/C on 26.10.2014 with retail invoice No. 4619 which was installed in his house on 28.10.2014. After 6 months , the A/C stopped functioning. The opp.party responded the notice of petitioner and on 8.6.2015 repaired the out door unit of the said A/C. However, the A/C functioned but not properly.
Over all in August, 2016 the A/C became defunct. The service center registered the complaint No. 711350 and checked the A/C and made some repair and stated that the outdoor unit containing the compressor is defective. Thereafter they did not take any action for refunction of the said A/C though 6 months time passed in the mean time, Since there is warranty period the petitioner has filed this case seeking the relief as already stated above in Para-1
3. Opp.party No.2 & 3 have remained set exparte in this case.
Opp.party Nop.1 has contested the case by filing written version with prayer to dismiss the case with costs, stating that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action and that opp.party No.1 has not made any deficit in service.
4. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties the following issues arises for consideration :-
(i) Whether there is any cause of action to file the case and whether the case is maintainable or not ?
(ii)Whether there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties or not ?
(iii)To what relief the petitioner is entitled to ?
: I S S U E S :
Issue No.(i):- The petitioner has purchased the A/C from opp.party NO.1 by paying cash vide invoice number 4619 for which there is consumer and service provider relationship between them. Opp.party No.2 is the manufacturing company and opp.party No.3 is the authorized service centre of opp.party No.2 for which they are also service providers. So the case is maintainable and since the opp.parties did not repair the alleged A/C despite intimation by the petitioner, the petitioner has cause of action to file the case.
Issue No. (ii) & (iii):- The petitioner has purchased the alleged A/C from opp.party No.1 , opp.party No.2 is the manufacturing company of the said A/C and opp.party No.3 is the authorized service centre of opp.party No.2 for which all of them are service providers and the petitioner is the consumer.
The A/C became defunct within 6months of purchase for which opp.party No.1 repaired it by filing gas on 08.06.2015 . Then though the A/C functioned but not up to satisfaction. Then on August, 2016 the A/C became defunct for which the petitioner reported it to opp.party No.1, 2 and 3 . Though opp.party No.3 verified the A/C and reported as compressor defect and though warranty period was there but opp.party No.3 did not repair the A/C. For the above reason the petitioner suffered great mental agony and approached this forum. Depsite receiving notice, the opp.parties have not repaired the A/C till date. So the opp.parties have made deficit in providing due service and the petitioner deserves to be compensated. Since the petitioner has used the A/C for about one year it is not desirable to give him a new A/C or the cost, but the opp.parties should repair the A/C and make full defect free, besides giving compensation towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
5. Hence the order:-
: O R D E R :
The case is disposed of on contest against opp.party No.1 and exparte against opp.party No.2 & 3. The opp.parties are severally and jointly liable and directed to repair the A/C and make it full defect free and pay Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) to the petitioner towards deficit in providing service and metal agony and Rs. 2500.00(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) towards the cost of litigation within 45 days of receiving this order. The opp.parties will take the A/C in their own cost for repairing by granting receipt.
Order delivered in the open forum
today the 28th Novembery,2017 with hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by Sd/-
(Sri D.C.Mishra),
Sd/- President.
(Sri K.K.Mohanty),
Member.
Sd/-
(Smt.S.Mallick )
Member.
