This is a complaint made by Smt. Arpita Biswas, wife of Sri Buddadev Biswas, residing at 22A, South End Park, 2nd floor, P.S.- Lake, Kolkata-700 029 against (1) Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. a private limited company having its office at 10A, Pressman House, 2nd floor, Lee Road, Kolkata-700 020, OP No.1, (2) Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 38/3A, Gariahat Road (Dhakuria Shop), South End Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.2 and (3) S. N. Enterprise, authorized service centre of Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. of B30, Katju Nagar, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.3, praying (a) for a direction upon the OPs to replace a new 1.5 ton A.C. Split Machine as per the receipt of Model in place of defective A.C. Machine, (b) compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and (c) litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
Facts in brief are that OP Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. a private limited company and Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. are private limited companies and S.N. Enterprise is the authorized service centre of Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.
Complainant purchased one A.C.Machine of 1.5 ton in the name of his wife Mrs. Arpita Biswas of 22A, South End Park, from the OP No.2, Dhakuria Shop opposite AMRI Hospital, Kolkata-700 029, after paying cash of Rs.34,500/- through SBI Debit Card.
On 14.4.2016 some young persons aged between 16/18 years representative or the service engineers of OP No.1 came to the house of Complainant for installation of the A.C. machine under the name and style of S.N. Enterprise authorized service centre of Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. Complainnt further has stated that keeping the good will and brand name of Samsung and the pre arranged installation by the S. N. Enterprise, Complainant did not ask for verification of their identity allowed them for working for installation.
During the installation above persons or representatives fixed bracket of the outer unit of the A.C. Machine without prior inspection of installation and without taking actual measurement of both the pipes. Complainant had raised objection to such method of installation of the machine as the Complainant was physically present there and installation was done in her presence. Complainant further states that after the installation process was finished by the representatives they started the A.C. Machine and went by saying that the machine should take time to cool the entire room and some time is needed. They made an installation bill of Rs.2,225/- which Complainant paid in full. Complainant has further stated that the machine was running on 16 point and the temperature of the room was cooling down. But the cooling started falling after five hours. Complainant found to her great distress that hot air was flowing and the machine was not functioning properly. Complainant has also stated that after such mal-functioning Complainant disconnected the electric line of the machine and informed the OPs.
Complainant has stated that at the second time of installation representatives came to the house of the Complainant again and dismantled the pipe line attached to the A.C. Machine and they found several leakage in the pipe line of gas and cool air flow. They installed a separate pipe which was welded. They also told that this machine cannot be repaired. Again, some problems cropped up. And the machine could not be repaired. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.2 contested this case by filing written version and shifted liability to OP No.1 & 3.
OP No.1 & 3 did not contest the case by filing written version and so it is heard ex-parte against them.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Complainant has also filed copies of documents showing that she purchased the A.C. Machine on 10.4.2016. OP No.2 has filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant. Complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply. OP No.2 has also filed affidavit-in-chief.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.
On perusal of the complaint, it appears that the allegation of the Complainant remained unchallenged and unrebutted. It appears that OP No.2 contested the complaint but has shifted his liability to the service centre and the manufacturer who are OP No.1 & 3. So, OP No.2 did not take pain to either inform the service centre or the manufacturer. Thus liability OP No.2 cannot shirk. Accordingly, OP No.2 becomes liable to this effect and Complainant is entitled to replacement of the A.C. Machine.
Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which appears to be unjustified and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- which also on excessive side. Further, for the harassment faced by the Complainant, she is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.
Hence,
ordered
CC/199/2016 and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.2 and ex-parte against OP No.1 & 3. All the OPs are directed to replace the A.C. Machine of the Complainant within two months of this order, in default pay the price of the A. C. Machine. In addition all the OPs are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost within two months. In default,this amount shall carry 12% interest.
