BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 26th day of November, 2008
C.C.No. 80/08
Between:
Smt. V.M. Goretti, W/o.D. Dhanjaya Rao,
Plot. No. 107, Prashanth Towers, Opp. Zilla Parishad , Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
- Proprietor, Royal Air Conditioning and Refirgiration,
Shop No.5, Nalanda Complex, Kurnool-5180001.
- Managing Director, Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigation Limited ,
Kherki daula post, Gurgaon-122 001. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.N.Nanda Kishore , Advocate, for the opposite party No1 and opposite party No.2 is called absent set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.80/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite party to refund Rs.30,500/- - cost of Air conditioner – with 24 % interest from the date of purchase or to replace with a defective free Air conditioner of Similar Model , Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case alleging the purchase of 1.5 tone Dura Kool Model Air conditioner from the opposite party No.1 , who is authorized agent of opposite party No.2 , for Rs.30,500/- vide bill No.2475 dated 28-04-2007 and its failure to function properly within few days of its purchase and the defects therein could not be rectified by the opposite party inspite of giving it several times for rectification of defects and the opposite party not even returned the said AC rectifying its defects even though eight months lapsed after to its giving for rectification and the said deficient conduct of the opposite party is ensuing mental agony .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.2 remained exparte to the case proceedings by his abstention , the opposite party No.1 caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filing written version denying any of its deficiency and there by any of its liability for complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case requiring strict proof of complaint averments deny any deficiency on its part and the allegation of the non rectification of defect , as at any time after its sale to the complainant there was any complaint as to its malfunction from the complainant and it is evident from the conduct of the complainant in not specifying the nature of actual defect. The complaint of sound when compressor was switched on made during warranty period was already rectified by the opposite party by replacing with new P.C. Board free of cost to said Air conditioner to maintain harmonious customer relations and
the complaint is motivated to harass the opposite party without any bonafidees in abuse of the process of Law and so seeks dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost to the opposite party .
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 and A2 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on Ex.B1 besides to sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of the opposite party holding its liability to the complainants claim .
6. The Ex.A1 is the cash bill dated 28-04-2007. It was issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant . It envisages the purchase of 1.5 tone Dura Kool Model Carrier make split Air conditioner for Rs.30,500/- by the complainant . As the said purchase being not disputed by the opposite party it is not requiring any further appreciation than what it envisages.
7. The Ex.A2 is the users manual and warranty said to have been issued to the complainant along with said purchase . It is also not being in dispute , is not requiring any further appreciation than what it envisages as to warranty conditions.
8. The contention of the complainant is that since a few days after to the purchase the said purchased Air conditioner is not functioning properly . Neither the complaint averments nor the sworn affidavit averments of the complainant specify the nature of said defect on account of which the said Air conditioner is not functioning properly except alleging vaguely it is not functioning properly . The complaint and sworn affidavit of the complainant avers the defects to the Air conditioner was not rectified inspite of lapse of eight months after its entrusting for rectification of defect. Any cogent piece of evidence is placed as to number of complaints made to the opposite party for rectification of any specified defect of said Air conditioner and as to entrustment of the Air conditioner for rectification of defects . On the other hand avers the job card in EX.B1 dated 7-4-2008 was placed by the opposite party along with written version in support of its contentions of rectification of complained defects as a concocted one to suit the needs of the case . If the bonafidees of Ex.B1 are doubtful or to be doubted it is even more worst to the complainant case for want of any documentary proof as to the alleged repeated complaints of the complainant as to the defects of said Air conditioner and to believe any non rectification of said defects in spite of complaints for several times .
9. The Ex.B1 is on the other hand supports the version of the opposite party as to the replacement of P.C. Board to the complainants Air conditioner for meeting the complainant’s satisfaction being it in warranty period . There is any legal notice of the complainant earlier to the filling of this case by the complainant alleging the actual nature of defect with which the said Air conditioner suffered to his mental agony after to its purchase and its not rectification inspite of several times it being brought for attending said defects to believe any bonafidees in her contentions .
10. Neither any cogent material is placed by the complainant that the defect in her Air conditioner is still existing and the said Air conditioner is still with the opposite party without any rectification of its defects. Nor any endeavour is made by the complainant to get examined the said Air conditioner during enquiry of this case as to any defect there in to observe any deficiency of the opposite party towards the complainant in attending any defect in the said Air conditioner covered under Ex.A1 and in its rectification .
11. Consequently, there being any merit and force in the case of the complainant creating any liability of the opposite parties to the complainants claim, the case of the complainant is dismissed with cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of November, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Cash bill dated 28-04-2007 for Rs.30,500/-.
Ex.A2. Users manual along with warranty
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Field failure/service report dated 07-04-2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
