Orissa

Cuttak

CC/40/2018

Pawan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propriertor,L P Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

29 Sep 2020

ORDER

 IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK

  C.C No.40/2018

Pawan Gupta,

S/O:Late Shyamlal Gupta,

At:Cantonment Road,Near Howrah Motor,

P.O:Buxi Bazar,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.… Complainant.

                           Vrs.

 

1.         Proprietor,L.P. Electronics(O) Private Ltd.,

College Square,Cuttack,Odisha.

 

2.        Managing Diriector,IFB Industries Ltd.,

Verma Electronics City Verma Salcete,Goa,India,

Pin-403722

                

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    05.04.2018

Date of Order:  29.09.2020

 

For the complainant.  :    Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No .1.       :    Mr. B.P.Bal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2.         :     Mr. B.P.Sarangi,Adv. & Associates 

 

Sri Dhruba Chran Barik,President.

The complainant having attributed deficiency in service to the O.Ps has filed this case against them seeking appropriate relief in terms of his prayer in the consumer complaint.

1. The case of the complainant is that the O.P No.1 installed two numbers of IFIB 1.5 ton air conditioners in the house of the complainant on 26.9.2016 and also assured for better service.  A few days after installation,  the complainant found that both the Air conditions are not properly cooling for which the complainant  immediately brought to the notice of the O.P No.1 and as such the technician is deputed to inspect and verify the defect but actually the technician was unskilled for which the defect could not be rectified and thereafter the Service Manager checked the Air Conditioner and could not be repaired due to its manufacturing defect as per the report of the service manager.

That after several complaints were made by the complainant, the O.P No.1 deputed one technician again to rectify the defect but to no avail.

That the said Air Conditioners were not in a repairable position as per the report of the technician.As such the O.P No.1 assured the complainant to replace those two air conditioners by supplying new ones as the defect was found within its guarantee period.

That as per the assurance made by the O.P No.1, the complainant waited for some days but to no effect for which the complainant had no other alternative than to serve an advocate’s notice on the O.Ps 1 & 2 who are jointly responsible by providing the defective two numbers of Air conditioners to the complainant and also not providing the service as per terms and conditions of the guarantee period.

That the complainant being an innocent consumer is moving from pillar to the post to get justice and the O.Ps 1 & 2 who are dealer and manufacturer of the L.P.Electronics(O) Pvt. Ltd.,College Square,Cuttack are jointly and severally liable for their deficiency in service as the defect found after few days of installation and was within the guarantee period.

That the O.Ps did not rectify the defect though informed from time to time. Their technicians even failed to do it.As such the defect in the Air Conditioners could not be removed and the O.Ps are liable to supply new Air Conditioners and in the event they failed to do so, the O.Ps should return the cost for the same.In the instant case the two defective Air Conditioners are lying with the complainant.The O.Ps are not taking any steps for its repair, replacement or to return the cost of the articles which they have received which amounts to deficiency in service.

The complainant has therefore prayed that the O.Ps may be directed to return Rs.78,000/- towards cost of 2(two) nos. of A.Cs together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-, all together Rs.1,78,000/- to the complainant in the interest of justice.

The complainant has filed the photocopy of retail invoice of the A.C machine which is marked as Annexure,1, photo copies of complaint against the O.Psthrough E.mail, warranty card and advocate’s notice have been filed and marked as Annexure-2,3 & 4 respectively.

2. O.Ps have filed written version stating there in  that  the case is not maintainable, there is no cause of action to file the suit and it is bad for non-joinder /mis-joinder of necessary parties.  It is further stated that O.P No.1 is hot the authorized service centre but only the dealer of the product of O.P NO.2, who is the manufacturer of IFB 1.5 ton of A.C.  That apart t is stated that the authorized service centre has not been made a party to this case.  The rest of the averments of the complainant are clearly denied by the O.P No.1. 

It is therefore prayed that the case against him may be dismissed.

3. O.P.No.2 has been set exparte.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant and O.P. No.1 at length and gone through the case records.

The complainant has purchased two nos. of A.C from O.P.1 for Rs.18,000/- as per Aannexiure-1 which were installed in his house on 26.9.16.After some days both the A.Cs developed complications and the A.C machines ceased to have cooling effect.In spite of effort of the technicians of the O.P No.1, the defect could not be removed.It is still lying unused in the premises of the complainant.

The learned advocate for O.P No.1 has interalia categorically stated that O.P is the only dealer of such A.C machines and not the authorized service centre, as such it is not liable for any compensation etc in this case.The learned advocate for the complainant has taken exception to it and stated that the O.P No.1 is also the authorized service centre for such A.C machines.

On perusal of Annexure-1, the photocopy of retail invoice issued by O.P Nol1, it is found that it contained certain terms and conditions such as the purchaser is not responsible for consequential damages arising out of delay in repair of equipments and in case job is not completed in its residence, then the customer will be requested to deliver the set in Company’s work shop at his own cost.Further instruction is given “No service will be provided on Sundays”.From the above it does not stand to reason as to how O.P No.1 can disown his liability as a authorized service centre, especially Annexure-1 has been issued by O.P No.1 which is not at all disputed.

From the above, it is held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 and they are liable for the same.Hence ordered;

                                                                                ORDER

The case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2.They are directed to refund Rs.78,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the two A.Cs together with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to him in the interest of justice.This order shall take effect within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced pby the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 29^th day of September,2020 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

Sri D.C.Barik.

President.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath

Member(W)