Sunteck Centre, 2nd floor,
Subash Road, Vile Parle E,
Mumbai – 400 057. ….. Opposite Party/ies
Coram:
Shri. G.K. Rathod : Hon’ble President
Shri. S.R. Sanap : Hon’ble Member
Appearance: Complainant – In person
For Opponent No. 1 - Adv. Shri. M.N. Dhamanse
Opponent No. 2 - Adv. Shri. V.P.Shastri
// J U D G M E N T //
PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE PRESIDENT
The Complainant’s case in brief stated as under :
The Complainant is a Senior Architect. The Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite Parties are Air Conditioning Service providers and the complaint is filed against the Opponent on the grounds of deficiencies in service and unfair trade practice. The Opponent No. 1 has failed and neglected to carry out preventive maintenance service of the Complainant’s two Air Conditioners despite taking monies for the same. It is submitted that he has purchased two Air conditioners in the year April 2008 for his office and for his residence. The both Air Conditioners are maintained for five years warranty period for the compressor. The Opponent No. 2 had installed their branded Air Conditioners at his Client’s premises in Chennai and Mumbai. The Opponent No. 1 is a Sub Contractor of the Opponent No. 2. In November 2014, the Opponent No.2 recommended the services of the Opponent No.1, who offered the Complainant better services. Taken in by the Opponent No. 1 and Opponent No. 2’s assurances of good service and maintenance, the Complainant agreed to the Opponent No. 1 proposal and paid to the Opponent No. 1 Rs. 6,628/- on 23/11/2014 for a non-comprehensive Annual Maintenance Service Contract for the Complainant’s 1.5 T AC at his office and 1.5 Ton Voltas Window AC at his residence at Colaba, Mumbai. But with the written clause that four preventive maintenance services in the duration of A.M.C. (One every three months) would be carried out. On 11/12/2014, the Opponent No. 1 carried out a thorough check and service of the Complainant’s residence and office Air Conditioners and certified them in their service reports as working normal. Thereafter, the Opponent No.1’s A.M.C. proposal dtd. 10/11/2014 was scheduled to service the Complainant’s Air Conditioners after three months. On 12/03/2015, as four services in the year were assured in the Opponent No. 1’s AMC and on that basis the Complainant had agreed and paid for A.M.C. contract. But the Opponent No. 1 neglected to carry out the maintenance services both at the Complainant’s office and at his residence in March 2015 and April 2015. Thereafter, the Complainant repeated telephonic calls and reminders, even though the Opponent has not given any response. On 25/04/2015, the Opponent No.1 sent their technician to check the Complainant’s unit as machine was tripping. The Opponent No.1’s technician left after disconnecting Complainant’s Air Conditioner and without giving any service report. He came back the next day, checked some more and again left without giving any service report.
It is further submitted that on 05/05/2015, he received an email with an invoice attachment dtd. 02/05/2015, demanding Rs. 17,498/- for repairing his office Air Conditioner. These demands contrary to the AMC contract. It is further submitted that the Opponent No. 1 as per the Agreement neglected to give any service after three months for first service. He has again received email, in which the Opponent No. 1 has informed to the Complainant that there is a fault in the Compressor of his air conditioner. There is no service record of his visit. Therefore, the Complainant has sent II-nd notice to the Opponent No. 1 on 07/05/2015. Inspite of neglect and violation of A.M.C. Contract terms, the Opponent has conducted unfair trade practice as per Consumer Protection Act, and there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent Nos. 1 & 2. Therefore, the Complainant has demanded sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of value of his Air Conditioners and damage to the Air Conditioners. The Complainant also demanded refund his AMC amount and also demanded sum of Rs. 75,000/- as a compensation due to deficiency in service and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation charges and other expenses etc.
To support above contentions, the Complainant has submitted affidavit evidence, written arguments, case laws as also advanced oral arguments.
(2) To revert the allegations, the Opponent No. 1 has submitted written statement, affidavit, list of documents, as also written arguments alongwith the case laws. It is submitted that the contents of the complaint are totally false and there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent No.1. He has also submitted that she has no concern with the Complainant and her name may be deleted from the complaint. It is submitted that on 30/07/2015, it has come to the Complainant’s knowledge that Opponent No. 1 Smita Pawar representing Grenesys. It is further submitted that as per the notice of the Complainant dtd. 05/05/2015, 07/05/2015 and 23/05/2015, it is correctly addressed to M/s. Grenesys but while lodging his complaint, the Complainant has wrongly addressed an individual employee of the Grenesys Company and she is not concerned with the business policy of the Grenesys and she is not a necessary party and requested to delete her name. The Opponent No. 1 has no where admitted that she is responsible for service offered by M/s. Grenesys to their client. M/s. Grenesys are authorized dealers of the Opponent No. 2 but they are not at any time sub contractor to them in the case of installation and servicing job which they undertake for their client. They are the independent Company to their client to do their jobs of installation and servicing of Air Conditioning Machinery. M/s. Grenesys are the service providers to their Complainant. Therefore, the allegations stated in the complaint by the Complainant are totally false. The Opponent Nos. 1 & 2 are two different companies and not at all connected to each other on the cause of action complained by the Complainant. It is submitted the case against the Opponent No.1 is totally false and liable to be dismissed.
(3) The Opponent No.2 has filed written statement alongwith affidavit written arguments. It is submitted that the contents of the complaint are totally false and denied in toto. She has raised a preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the Complainant has suppressed the material and relevant facts of the case and this complaint has filed with malafide and dishonest intention. It is further submitted that Miss. Tanvi Patil met Architect Mr. Sudhir Diwan for courtesy meeting and the Complainant had made an Air Conditioner enquiry and the inquiry was handed over to the Opponent No.2. RA Sales Manager Mr. Sandeep Varma where the work for supply and installation of Dalkin Split Air Conditioner was done through one of the dealer partners M/s. Grenesys. On account of his personal experience with Grenesys the Complainant asked Grenesys to give AMC Services at Complainant’s residence and office. Thus, the Opponent No.2 is not concerned with the present case in any way. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable with the Opponent No.2. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent No.2.
(4) From the above facts, following points arose for our determination .
