Date of filing : 26/09/2018
Date of Judgement : 21/12/2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This Complaint is filed by the complainant Sri Suchit Kumar Mitra under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite Party (referred as OP hereinafter) Sri N. Dutta of M/S Esteem Aircon Engineering Co, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Case of the Complainant in short is that the OP is a service dealer of providing maintenance of Air Conditioners. Complainant entered into a contract dated 21.04.2018 with the OP for the maintenance service of his three Air Conditioners in his house for the period from 25.5.2018 to 25.5.2019and paid sum of Rs 7200/- to the OP. After the said contract, OP sent his mechanic for service who told the Complainant that one of the A.C( Window Model) was malfunctioning and not giving desired cooling. On being told that compressor of the A/C machine was to be replaced for better cooling deficiency, Complainant paid Rs 10500/- for the new compressor and gas charging. Thereafter mechanic replaced the compressor and charged gas but without checking the cooling efficiency, he left. It was noticed by the Complainant that the cooling efficiency of the said unit not only dropped but became worse compare to previous situation. Complainant called the OP but since OP paid no heed, present Complaint has been filed praying for directing the OP to refund sum of Rs 7200/- paid towards Annual maintenance cost, Rs 10500/- paid towards cost of new compressor, Rs 20000/- as compensation and Rs 8000/- spent by the Complainant for restoring the condition of A/C machine as before.
OP is contesting the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations made against him contending inter-alia that after the replacement of the old compressor with new one, mechanic waited for two hours to observe cooling effect of the A/C and he left only after Complainant was satisfied. Complainant even had misbehaved with the mechanic. New compressor was purchased from Bharat Refrigeration on 12.6.18 invoice being No. 268. OP has thus prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the trial both parties filed their respective examination-in-chief on affidavit followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto and ultimately argument has been advanced by both the parties. Both parties have also filed the written notes of arguments.
Following points require determination:
- Whether there has been any deficiency in rendering service by the OP?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Both the points being inter-linked are taken-up together for discussion. Complainant has claimed that he had entered into a contract with the OP for annual maintenance service of his three Air Conditioners at house for the period from 25.5.18 to 24.5.19 and during first servicing he was told by the mechanic that for better cooling effect, compressor of the one of the A/C machine was to be replaced. It is an admitted fact that subsequently compressor was replaced by a new one. However main dispute as alleged is that according to Complainant in spite of replacement of compressor, cooling efficiency did not improve. It is claimed by the Complainant that new compressor was not supplied by the OP but a duplicate unit was supplied.
The reason behind claiming the alleged new compressor duplicate one is that according to the Complainant, had the compressor being new one, the tax invoice with GSTIN number would have been mentioned stating the compressor number and the manufacturer’s name and details. In this regard, it may be pertinent to point out that one bill issued by the OP of Rs 10500/- in total has been filed by the Complainant, which indicates that for one no of compressor (new) Rs 8500/- and for gas charging Rs 2000/- was paid by the Complainant. However OP in his written version has denied about payment of Rs 10500/- by the Complainant and has contended that Rs 10000/- was paid but OP has nowhere in the written version or during evidence disputed and denied about issuance of the said receipt of Rs 10500/-. No document is filed by the OP showing that Rs 10000/- only was paid. It further appears from the documents filed by OP with written version which is a road Challan and marked as annexure ‘C1’ that OP had charged the said sum of Rs 10500/-for compressor (new) with gas charging and labour and transport charges. Even though in the said road Challan, the compressor SR No 0639, 1.5 ton Rotary compressor is stated but it indicates that actual invoice of the purchase of the newcompressor being Annexure ‘C’ was not supplied to the Complainant by the OP. It appears that Road Challan annexure ‘C1’ however has been duly signed by the Complainant. Complainant has nowhere denied that the said Road Challan does not bear his signature. So since the said invoice annexure ‘C’ was not supplied to the Complainant, Complainant seems to have believed that the compressor (new) was duplicate. But the purchase invoice/bill annexure ‘C’ filed by OP is very categorical that the said new compressor was purchased from the shop ‘Bharat Refrigeration’ and Product description is 1.5 tonRotary compressor Sl No 0639 and it also reveals about payment of GST. Complainant has nowhere claimed that the said purchase invoice being Annexure ‘C’ is fake or has been manufactured. So in the absence of any contrary material, only on the bare assertion by the Complainant, it cannot be accepted that the bill is not authentic or the compressor is duplicate.
It may also be mentioned here that the Complainant ought to have asked for the bill or invoice of purchase on the very day of replacement of the compressor by the mechanic but the same was not asked by him. However since the Road Challan Annexure ‘C1’ is duly signed by the Complainant and it bears the particulars i.e compressor serial No 0639, 1.5 ton Rotary compressor, which is same in invoicei.e Annexure ‘C’, we find no justification to accept the claim of the Complainant that the replaced compressor was duplicate. According to Complainant , he was compelled to get the air conditioner repaired by a third party but no document in this regard has been filed. Neither any document is filed by the Complainant showing that the third party who repaired the A/C machine subsequently found the replaced compressor defective or duplicate.
So in view of the discussions as highlighted above, present Complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Hence
Ordered
CC/576/2018 is dismissed on contest.
