SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) against the O.P alleging deficiency in service with a prayer for compensation.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that he had purchased one Haier Heavy Duty Inverter split AC and one stabilizer from OP No.1 on 17.6.2023 for consideration of Rs.47,800/- and obtained valid invoice. The Split AC covers 5 years warranty whereas compressor for 12 years. The technical staff of OP No.2 had installed the AC in his premises, but after 11 months, the alleged AC started mechanical problem and did not discharge cooling. The complainant went to the OP No.1 & 2 and complained about the problem. One technical staff had been to his premises for repairing the defect AC, but yield no result. On 15.6.2024, the complainant requested OP No.2 complaining the problems and the OP No.2 sent mechanic for repairing the AC in question, but no result has been yielded. Again, the complainant on 24.6.2024 made a complaint before the OP No.2, but no technician visited. Thereafter, the complainant went to the OP No.1 on 26.6.2024 requesting for repairing or replace the defective split AC, but they refused to take any complaint. So, the complainant again made a complaint on 27.6.2024 through service call as well as through SMS to repair or replace the AC as per warranty condition. But the Ops refused to take any action. Due to deficiency in service caused by the Ops, the complainant not only sustained financial loss but also suffered from mental agony and harassment. Hence, this case.
3. In the present, although the notice was issued through registered post against the Ops, they neither appeared nor filed their written version, hence, they were set ex parte.
4. To substantiate his case, the complainant has filed one Tax invoice dated 17.6.2023 issued by OP No.1 (Annexure-1) which disclosed that the complainant had purchased one Haier AC inverter 1.5T 5S HSU 19E-TXG5BE and paid Rs.41,000/-, another Tax Invoice dated 17.6.2023 issued by OP No.1 (Annexure-2) shows that the complainant had purchased one V-guard STB VE 400 and paid Rs.6,800/-, Service request SMS dated 12.6.2023, 15.6.2023, 24.6.2023 & 27.6.2023 (Annexure-3) sent by Ops on the complaint lodged by the complainant.
5. On perusal of the above documentary evidence (Annexure-1 to 3) produced on behalf of the complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainant had purchased one Haier AC inverter 1.5T 5S HSU19E-TXG5BE @ Rs.41,000/- along with one V-Guard STB VE 400 @ Rs.6,800/- from the OP No.1 on 17.6.2023. The aforesaid AC was installed by the OP No.2 in the premises of the complainant. But, as it appears, after 11 months of its installation, the AC started mechanical problem and did not cooling. Thus, the complainant lodged complaint before the OP No.1 & 2 stating the alleged problem and they sent their mechanical staff to the premises of the complainant and undertook the repair work, but no result. Again the complainant on 15.6.2023 lodged another complaint before the OP No.2, who sent their mechanical staff for repairing and they attended the repair work, but similar is the defect as before. Thereafter, on 24.6.2023 and 27.6.2023, the complainant knocked the door of the OP No.1 & 2 requesting them either to repair the defective AC or to replace the same, but the OP No.1 & 2 did not pay any heed to it, rather, they refused to take any action. The above complaints lodged by the complainant has been proved by him vide Annexure-3. Further, as evident, the product of the complainant is yet to be under the warranty period. That apart, the complainant has raised his claim only on the Haier Split AC vide Annexure-1.
6. In this case, OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of OP No.2, who is the company of the Haier heavy duty inverter Split AC and OP No.3 is the authorized Branch Office. The complainant has not raised any claim against OP No.3, therefore, he is not liable for the compensation. As it appears, the OP No.1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed their written version at least to defend themselves from the charges levelled by the complainant against them. Thus, the solitary evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant remains unchallenged and thus, it can be used against the OP No.1 & 2. The very fact in the present case is that the OP No.1 & 2 did not choose to appear on receipt of the notice issued by this Commission and not even taken any initiative to solve the issue which itself indicates that the OP No.1 & 2 are guilty of selling adulterated product and consequent deficiency in service by their negligent attitude in attending to the complainant on the matter which is brought to its notice, which otherwise attributes a deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore, the OP No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for the compensation, as prayed for by the complainant.
O R D E R
Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on ex-parte against the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and dismissed on ex-parte against O.P No.3. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 are hereby directed to:-
- refund a sum of Rs.41,000/- (the cost of the AC in question) with interest @ 9% per annum from 17.06.2023 till its realization, to the complainant.
- pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-, to the complainant, towards compensation for mental agony, harassment & litigation cost.
All the aforesaid awarded amounts shall be paid by the O.Ps No.1 & 2 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps No.1 & 2 through the process of law.
Pronounced in the Open court of this Commission, this the 2nd day of December, 2024 under the signature & seal of the Commission.
