Order no. 16
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a window type Air-Conditioner machine and the same was installed in the house of the complainant. The price of the machine included the annual maintenance charge. The complainant requested the o.p. 1 to deliver the said AC machine on 17/01/2015 and the same is to be installed on 18/01/2015. The employees agreed to do the same but on 17/01/2015 the employees of Reliance Retail Ltd., o.p. 1 did not contact the complainant and the complainant thereafter contacted the o.p. 1. The o.p. 1 delivered the AC machine on 18/01/2015 but none from the o.p. 1 and o.p. 2 came to install the said AC machine. Subsequently on 20/01/2015 two employees of o.p. 1 came to install the said AC machine. After the commissioning of the said AC machine it was not functioning. The said fact was brought to the notice of the o.p. 1. The complainant thereafter requested the o.p. 1 to replace the AC machine. The employees of the o.p. 1 who visited the flat of the complainant refused to replace the said AC machine with a new AC machine and they fixed the machine there. The complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the o.p. 1 and requested the o.p. 1 to send specialized technical persons for commissioning of the AC machine. On 21/01/2015 two engineers visited the house of the complainant and examined the AC machine and opined that the AC machine was not required to be repaired and it was alright. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the amount of Rs. 36,205.83/- and compensation for physical discomfort of Rs. 9,00,000/-, compensation for mental stress of Rs. 9,00,000/- totaling an amount of Rs. 18,37,654.06/- and interest on the said amount @24% p.a.
O.p. 3 only contested the case and denied that there was any relation between the complainant and o.p. 3 regarding the purchase of the said AC machine and thereby the o.p. 3 prayed for deletion of the name of the finance company.
The o.p. 1 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant had given the employees of the o.p. 1 to understand that she had already done extensive research on the subject of window air-condition machine and had been to several other electronic retail shops thereafter she decided to purchase the AC machine. The o.p. 1 stated that there was no manufacturing defect prior to the booking of the AC machine the complainant had been sufficiently advised by the employees of o.p. 1 against purchasing such model since the same was very uncommon and obsolete. After the installation of the air-condition machine the machine was removed pointed out by the complainant and the o.p. 1 had repeated informed the complainant that identical AC machine of same model and specification that had been selected and purchased by the complainant could not be found in the market. The o.p. 1 was willing to refund the entire amount in respect of the purchased price but the complainant did not accept the same. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. 1 specifically stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.1 and thereby the o.p. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant purchased the AC machine from the o.p. 1 ?
- Whether the machine was found defective ?
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. 1 and o.p. 2 ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one AC machine from the o.p. 1. After the installation of the machine it was detected that the machine was not functioning properly and she brought it to the notice of the o.p. 1 but no effective steps were taken for which the complainant suffered and as such the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the price of the said AC machine along with compensation totaling an amount of Rs. 18,37,654.06/- and interest on the said amount @24% p.a.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. 1 argued that the complainant after making survey of the market and technicalities of window AC machine system decided to purchase the same from the o.p. 1. The complainant was informed regarding the complications of the said model but the complainant bent on to her choice. While it was brought to the notice of o.p. 1 that the AC machine was not functioning properly agreed to refund the price of the AC machine but the complainant with her ulterior motive to have compensation of more than Rs. 18,00,000/- filed this case. In view of such fact the Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. 1 prayed for necessary order may be passed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant being an advocate before purchase surveyed the market which has been admitted by the complainant by mentioning the said fact in the petition of complaint. The complainant was informed by the o.p. 1 that the said model was introduced newly and it had several complications for which the o.p. 1 discouraged the complainant to purchase the said model. The complainant bent upon to her choice of purchasing the said model and after installation some complications arose. The complainant in the mean time started to make various complains to the o.p. 1. The o.p. 1 in order to pacify the complainant sent their employees, technicians, engineers to apprise the complainant regarding the complications in the said machine and they also revealed the technicalities of operation which was to some extent complicated. It is found from the materials on record the complainant went on making allegations regarding the function of the said AC machine and went on lodging, sending E-mail, SMS, phone calls etc. The o.p. 1 after realizing the psychological impact of the mind of the complainant agreed to refund the price of the said AC machine which the complainant turned down with an ulterior motive to raise her grievance before the Ld. Forum which culminated her to file this case claiming compensation of more than Rs. 18,00,000/-. In view of such perspective of the case we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the refund of the price of the AC machine provided the said AC machine is handed over to the o.p. 1 at the condition the same was delivered to the complainant.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. 140 of 2015 is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. 1, ex-parte against o.p. 2 and dismissed against o.p. 3. The o.p. 1 and o.p. 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs. 36,205.83/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. The complainant is directed to hand over the AC machine at the same condition provided the amount is paid by the o.p. 1 and o.p. 2 as mentioned herein above.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
