SRI P.K.PANDA,PRESIDENT …      The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant had purchased a Samsung Slipt A/C, Ar18TV3HFTZNNA(Sl.No.04G3PPCMC00229H) on dated 19.05.2020 from the OP.No.1 on payment of  Rs.43000/-. The complainant contended that, after its use this productnot functioning properly and none cooling so on dtd.27.08.2021 the complainant registered a complain before the Ops and on 29.08.2021 the OP-2 visited on 16.10.2021 and remarked for manufacture defect.So,the complainant requested for necessary replacement of the same. In spite repeated complain it was not rectified still it is none functioning condition under the warranty period.The father of the complainant is an old aged and alied person and due to lack of A/C he suffered a lot.The Complainant sustaine a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss due to the unfair trade practice of the Ops.As such the complainant filed the complaint under C.P.Act and prayer for appropriate order in favour by directing OPsto Rs.90,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- on litigation cost of expenses along with the cost of Air Conditioner etc.,for such unfair, illegal, deceptive and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and any other relief as the Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2.           The counsel for OP.No.3 entered his appearance and filed counter to contend that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant approached this Commission not with clean hands. The allegation of inherent manufacturing defect is without exist or relying any expert or analysis report. The contentions of complainant areself explanatory, false & frivolous and the complainant should have put the same with strict proves. The complainant is not a consumer as the instant dispute is not a consumer dispute as there are no issues in the A/C as alleged by the complainant.He further contends that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s, so prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.           The counsel for OP.3 and complainant together heard the case minutely. The complainant has filed copy of some relevant documents to support his case. The OP.1 and 2 neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case, hence they set ex parte and thisCommission decided to proceed the case basing on documents as available in record on merit. Submissions after perusal considered.

4.           It reveals from record that the complainant has procured the saidair conditioner on dt.19.05.2020 and the same found multiple defects from the beginning part of its purchase i.e. within full valid warranty period. It is seen that, the complainant time and again approached the OP.s intimating the so called defects, but the OP.s neither rectified the set nor replaced the same or paid its cost. The complainant first approached the OP.2 and being after fails, he approached others  with a hope of repair. On perusal of job sheet of OP.2 it is specified "Voltage problem/Customer not satisfied about cooling”. In our concerned opinion, the complainant having reputation ,earning for his livelihood and he  has purchased the A/C by paying a huge remuneration alluring great features by use ,but he restrained to facilitate the same, otherwise in the present case the OPs unless replace the same tried to patch up the latches having behind the product. On the other hand the OP.s neither replaced the product nor assured to pay of its price on claim of complainant. Perusing the evidences, submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the product in question purchased by the complainant has inherent manufacturing defect. The service rendered by OP.2  being duty bound is not satisfactory, and the OP.3 being the principal is liable for the deficiency accrued on the part of its agents. As such the complainant suffered mental agony with the defective product, and also inflicted financial losses for the negligence and unfair practices of OPs, he prayed for compensation.

5.           From all corners of the case, it is observed that, the OP.3 having challenged in their counter that the allegation made by complainant on manufacturing defect is without relying any expert report etc. Rather from catena of top court decisions held that "expert opinion/analysis report is not necessary for every case". Moreover in the instant case we have carefully examined the alleged gadget and found multiple defects as alleged. So the contention of OP.3 is baseless, hence we found that the OP.s without following the warranty norms acts as illegal and highhanded manner, whichseemsgross abuse of process of law, per se, we found arbitrary and unfair practices on the part of OPs which amounts to deficiency in service. As thus the complainant is harassed as alleged hence he lawfully entitled for compensatory relief. However as the OP.3 is the manufacturer of the said product, the complaint is allowed against OP.No.3 with costs.           

                                                                                                       ORDER

i..           The opposite party No.3supra is hereby directed to pay the invoice price of the air conditioner set i.e. Rs.43,000/-, inter alia, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousands) as compensation and a sum of Rs.3000/-(Three thousands) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.           All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum shall carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.

( Pronounced on this the 22nd day of Feb' 2023).