ORDER NO. 5 DT. 03.11.2010

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

Appellant is present through Mr. U.C.Jha, Ld. Advocate.  Respondent No. 1 is present through Mr. Asish Kr. Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate, who files BNA.  Heard both sides at length.  Judgement is passed as under :-

The Appellant/OP No. 1 and its service provider have come up against the judgement and order dt. 17.3.10 passed in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 215/2009 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata.

The complainant purchased one 1.2 ton Air Conditioner of the make of the Appellant company from Khosla Electronic Pvt. Ltd. on 30.4.08 for his personal use.  It is not in dispute that the said Air Conditioner carried a warranty period of one year with three free services, of which the first two were dry services and the third a wet service.  It has been alleged in the complaint that within the said period of warranty although two free dry services were given to the complainant, but the third wet service had not been provided to the complainant. 

The Appellant in spite of notice did not appear and contest the said complaint case.  The same was accordingly decided ex parte by directing the Ops/Appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- jointly and/or severally and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the said order.

At the hearing on behalf of the Appellant only two points have been urged.  First, that the complainant has filed the complaint case against Godrej Appliances Ltd. instead of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and as such, the complaint is not maintainable.  Although the complainant initially impleaded the said Godrej Appliances Ltd. as OP No. 1 to the complaint, but such description of the OP No. 1 was subsequently changed and it appears from the certified copy of the impugned judgement that the OP No. 1 has been impleaded as Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. instead of Godrej Appliances Ltd.  Nothing has been shown by the Appellant in course of hearing of the above Appeal that in the complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act the said Godrej Appliances Ltd. remained as OP No. 1 on the date of passing of the aforesaid impugned order.  We are, therefore, not satisfied with the contention as raised on behalf of the Appellant.  Secondly, it has been urged that the warranty period was for one year from the date of purchase.   The complaint was made on 5.5.09 after expiry of one year. The Ops were, therefore,  not obliged to render any free service after the expiry of the said warranty period.  Such contention is absolutely frivolous.  The warranty was provided by the Appellant company for providing three services, two of which were dry and the third a wet service within a span of one year from the date of purchase.  Admittedly, the purchase was made on 30.4.08.  Therefore, the Appellant company was legally obliged to render such services within the period of one year from the aforesaid date of purchase.  The wet service having not been provided by 29.4.09, i.e. within the period of one year from the date of purchase, the complaint was made with the company on 5.5.09.  This clearly indicates that for the failure of the Appellant for not providing wet service by 29.4.09 the cause for making complaint arose.  The complaint was, therefore, made by the said letter dt. 5.5.09 by pointing out the deficiency of service by the Appellant/OP No. 1. The contention, therefore, so made by the Appellant is devoid of any merit.  For all the aforesaid reasons the Appeal fails.  The impugned judgement and order is accordingly affirmed.