Judgment : Dt.14.9.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Anupam Dutta, s/o Sri Banomali Dutta, 221/R, Mahatma Gandhi Road, “Prantick”, P.O.-Thakurpukur, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 063 against Proprietor, Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Behala Branch,  371/1, D.H.Road, P.S.-Behala Thana, Kolkata-700 034, OP No.1 and Hitachi-jch-India Ltd., 25/1, D.H.Road, Barisha, Behala, Kolkata-700 008 praying for refund of Rs.36,925/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.            Facts in brief are that OP No.1 is the dealer in electronic and domestic appliances like Air Conditioner, refrigerator, TV, Mixer Grinder, Water filter, Laptops, Camera, etc. OP No.2 is the manufacturer of electronics and domestic appliances like Air conditioner, refrigerator, etc. Complainant purchased one 1.2 ton air conditioner Model No.RAUK514IVD on 29.4.2016 and it was delivered on 8.5.2016. It was found that the out-door unit’s aluminum fins badly damaged. Complainant raised objection to the installer and asked them for exchange with good one to which they told that everything is OK and installed the air conditioner . Further, they told since the wall was broken and the defect is nothing and installed the air condition on 8.5.2016. Complainant visited the Khosla electronics and raised complaint and requested to change the damaged unit, who told Complainant that such type of defects are acceptable. Further, they told that AC’s performance are not affected for the damaged portion. Complainant strongly objected and refused to accept the damaged unit. Complainant told that he had paid full money and why he will accept the damaged unit. Complainant requested for replacement of the air conditioner. But, it was not done. So, Complainant reported the matter to the Consumer Affairs Dept where Khosla Electronics was called. But, since nothing could be done, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 has stated that the question of committing unfair trade practice or deficiency in service by OP No.1 does not arise. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            OP No.2 did not contest the complaint by filing written version and so the complaint is heard ex-parte against OP No.2.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP No.1 filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.1 filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP No.1 filed affidavit-in-reply.

Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.36,925/- and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. Further Complainant has submitted the receipts showing the payment of Rs.35,500/- which is annexure A. Complainant has also filed copies of e-mails between him and the OP. The e-mails reveal that Complainant purchased an AC machine which was found defective. But neither of the OPs could relieve the Complainant out of his grievances.

            As such, original copies suggest that Complainant purchased the AC machine after paying about Rs.36,925/- including delivery charge and installation charge. But, Complainant failed to get comfort which he had expected by purchasing the A.C. machine.

            On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply, it appears that OP failed to demolish the allegation of the Complainant anything only whatsoever. OP No.2 did not contest the case and his liability is fixed as he did not rebut or challenge the allegations of the Complainant. Ld. Advocate for OP No.1 submitted that if there is any defect in product the manufacturer is liable.

            In our view such cannot be the legal position because a dealer as well as the product manufacturer is considered liable for any deficiency in service for any defect in the product and the liability is joint with the manufacturer. Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- is awarded object of justice would be served.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/62/2017 and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against OP No.2. OPs are directed to pay Rs.35,500/- as price of the AC within two months of this order. In addition, they are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation cost within that period. In default, the total amount of Rs.50,500/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.