BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 19^th November 2016

Filed on 16.06.2015

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

C.C. No. 370/2015

Between

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant's case

The complainant Sri. Babu Varghese, a Senior Advocate of High Court of Kerala, purchased an Air Conditioner manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party dealer for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- on the promise that it is a power saving device. It was installed by a technician of the opposite parties on 30.08.2014. Since the outer unit of the Air Conditioner was kept in the passage and as the length of the copper tube was not sufficient enough to reach the outer window, another copper tube, cost of which was Rs. 4,000/-, was purchased at the time of installation. An amount of Rs. 3,000 was collected by the opposite parties towards the installation charges. However, after the installation the Air-Conditioner was not working properly since there was gas leakage. Later, the technician of the opposite parties came and refilled the gas. Still, there was no proper cooling for the Air-Conditioner. Despite repeated requests made to the 2^nd opposite party, the defect was not cured. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint with the 1^st opposite party by e-mail dated 19.11.2014. The opposite party registered the complaint with Regn:No. SKSC 141530765. The opposite party, however, did not rectify the complaint. The Air-Conditioner had a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase. The defect of the Air-Conditioner is a manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the Air-Conditioner. The conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant suffered severe mental agony and hardships due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. The complaint seeks replacement of the Air-Conditioner with new one, or in the alternative for refund of the amount of Rs. 42,000/- in addition to the payment of compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties and they did not appear to contest the matter.

3. When the matter came up for complainant's evidence the complainant filed an affidavit and Exbt. A1 to A4 were marked. Heard the complainant.

4. The only issue for consideration is as to whether the complainant had proved deficiency in service and commission of unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.

5. Along with a complaint, the complainant has produced 4 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A4 in evidence. Exbt. A1 (1) is a cash receipt dated 30.08.2014 for Rs. 25,000/- and Exbt. A1 (2) is a receipt for a payment of Rs. 10,000/- of the same date. Exbt. A2 shows that the payment was in respect of invoice No. SK04809 dated 29.08.2014 and the Air-Conditioner unit was installed on 30.08.2014 by the technicians of the 2^nd opposite party. Exbt. A3 is the e-mail dated 19.11.2014 sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party making all the allegations contained in the present complaint. The said e-mail is seen responded to by the opposite party on the same day at 11.20 am informing the complainant that the complaint was registered with ref. No. SKSC141530765 and that the concerned people of the opposite party will get in touch with the customer within 24 hrs. Frustrated by the non attendance of the complaint by the concerned technicians, the complainant issued another letter in continuation of the previous complaint. It is seen that the successive request made by the complainant to get the Air-Conditioner repaired and to get it in working condition, the opposite parties did not turn up to rectify the defects, which according to the complainant was manufacturing defects.

6. On going through the affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint, it is seen that the allegations contained in the complaint are factually true. The documents Exbt. A1 to A4 were marked in this case would corroborate the contentions made by the complainant in the complaint. We therefore find that the complainant has proved the case brought out through the complaint. The issue is found in favour of the complainant.

7. In the result, the complaint stands allowed by passing an order directing the 1^st opposite party to replace the Air-Conditioner purchased by the complainant on 29.08.2014 or in the alternative to refund Rs. 35,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of realization.

8. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 7000/- towards the cost of additional materials purchased by the complainant and to refund Rs. 3000/-, the installation charges collected from the complainant, with interest @ 18% p.a. from 30.08.2014 till the date of realization, in the event of not providing replacement as above.

9. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service committed against the complainant and to pay the cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. Both opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation and cost jointly and severally.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of November 2016.

Sd/- Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- Beenakumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Date of Despatch of this Order ::

By Post ::

By Hand ::

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibit : Nil

…..................