Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case: The case of the complainant is that on 27/01/2018 he purchased one AC 18 K Superia Inverter (41-CO) from M/S Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Srerampur branch, amounting to Rs. 43,000/- vide invoice no. SR/SA1718/02689 from. On 2.2.2018 an agent namely Chiku made installation of the same in the house of the complainant. After 2 months the complainant came to know that the original copper pipe of carrier company was not installed with the outdoor machine and thereafter the complainant intimated the matter to the opposite party no. 1 and the seller of the AC machine and they assured that within one week they would install original copper pipe after removing the previous one but they neglected to do the work and the complainant informed the matter to both the opposite parties. Thereafter opposite party no. 1 sent their staff and opposite party no. 2 asked for pardon through e-mail and the said staff at last admitted the allegation but they claimed a sum of Rs. 4000/- for re-installing the pipe expenses. The complainant refused to pay the said amount and the complainant lodged a complaint before consumer affairs and on 8.8.2018 the mediating officer was pleased to call both the parties at his office and the opposite parties admitted the claim and it was settled that the opposite party no. 1 will reinstall the original copper pipe of carrier company and they would satisfy the complainant. On 23.8.2018 evening without informing the men of opposite party no. 1 came to the complainant’s home for reinstalling another company’s pipe along with one invoice bill in which there was no phone no and no price was written but the said pipe was not the pipe of carrier company for which the complainant disallowed them to reinstall the same in the AC machine and the staff of the opposite party no. 1 sent to the complainant invoice bill as well as the photo of said product and the complainant came to know from the internet that “totaline” company would supply the original copper pipe to the opposite party no. 2 and the complainant demanded said pipe to be supplied by “totaline” company but they failed to supply the same and thus the complainant has been deprived from enjoying the appropriate original copper pipe of carrier company and hence this instant application for appropriate direction upon the appropriate authority for eradication of his problem and for other reliefs as have been made out in the petition of complaint.
Evidence adduced by complainant
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
On scrutiny of the record it appears that O.P.No-2 made its appearance and filed written version. The O.P.No-1 has not made its appearance to contest the case.
Defence case: The O.P. No -2 submits that the AC has no defect at all and is performing perfectly. The present complaint has been filed for a mere 2 mt long copper pipe. Para 4 of the written version states that a new copper pipe under its authorized trade mark “ Camipro” was offered to the complainant who refused to accept the same on his mistaken and misconceived ground. “Totaline” is the registered trade mark of carrier air conditioner and refrigeration ltd. and Camipro is the registered trade mark of the O.P.No-2 i. e. Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd. and in such circumstances this O.P.No-2 has claimed that the complainant has filed the present case without verifying the basic facts.
It has also submitted that “totaline” is the brand owned by carrier air conditioning and refrigeration ltd. and for this the O.P was not in a position to supply the said copper pipe and in such circumstances the O.P.No-2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Though written version has been filed by O.P-2, yet neither of the O.Ps appear to contest the case and as such this commission is compelled to dispose of the present application as ex parte against both the O.Ps.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyer of the complainant
Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Heard argument of complainant at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue number 1
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Issue number 2
Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those are not exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/- as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. So, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present case.
Issue nos.3&4 :
Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The specific case of the complainant is that the original copper pipe of the carrier company has been stolen at the time of installation on 2/2/18. It appears that communications were made with the company through various letters. It appears that there is one note sheet which has been scribed on the basis of a meeting held by the assistant director, C.A and FBP, Hooghly relating to request for replacement of original carrier copper pipe with the local pipe. The letter of the petitioner to the director relates to the prayer for a meeting and the note sheet dated 8/8/2018 speaks eloquently about admission of the O.P.-1 about not fitting the original pipe line on 2/2/18. The very note sheet has been signed by the complainant and one Mr. Kaushik (a man of the O.P-1) along with the mediating officer of CA and FBP, Hooghly.
A close scrutiny of the note sheet reveals that there was a compromise between the complainant and O.P-1 that within 23/8/18 the copper pipe fitted with the AC machine will be replaced by a new one 10 ft original copper pipe of carrier service centre and the man of the O.P-1 will stay on spot after operating the AC machine whether the machine is working perfectly. This fact being prove3ed Mr. Tapas Sen (the complainant) will certify that the AC machine is working well.
This commission has reason to believe that the meeting did not yield any fruitful results compelling the present petitioner to institute the instant proceeding.
Accordingly, this commission is of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get the relief by replacing the present outdoor wire. In page 3 of the petition of complaint it appears that the present petitioner has claimed copper pipe of “totaline” company but a perusal of para 4 of the written version of O.P-2 it appears that “totaline” is the registered trade mark of carrier air conditioning and refrigeration ltd. and “camipro” is the registered trade mark of Carrier Media India Pvt. Ltd and in support of this a copy of registration certificate has been filed. This commission has gone through the aforesaid certificate along with “camipro “ the trade mark and also the camipro spare of premium quality of soft copper and other high quality products.
Hence on consideration of the above facts and circumstances this commission is of opinion that the original pipe be replaced by a “camipro” spare which is of premium quality soft copper and other high class products and the present AC is not required to be replaced but for harassment the petitioner is entitled to get compensation.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
Ordered
that the complaint case no. 140 of 2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against O.P. No. 1 in part & stands dismissed against O.P 2.
The petitioner do get one “camipro” spare of premium quality soft copper pipe in place of the present one which is to be supplied by Raipur Electronic Pvt. Ltd. (O.P-1) and also do get compensation of Rs 10000/ for mental agony and Rs. Rs.5000/ as litigation cost within 45 days from date from O.P.No.1 failing which the petitioner be at liberty to take recourse to law.,
O.P 1 is further directed to deposit Rs. 3000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly for the poor litigant.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
