Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the full price of the said cooler paid at the time to purchase along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as Compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as Litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a new Symphony Cooler for domestic use on 28.07.2011 from Baba Electronics, Hajiganj, Patna City after paying the price of Rs. 8,500/- vide annexure – 1. The aforesaid cooler bears the serial no. 14A1611L25715. The aforesaid cooler was properly installed as per instruction given by staff of opposite party no. 3. At the time of purchasing the aforesaid cooler, the complainant was informed that the aforesaid cooler bears one year warranty on its parts since the date of purchase as will appear from annexure – 2.
It is the case of the complainant that since the date of purchase of cooler, it was not working satisfactorily so he complaint to opposite party no. 3 who advised him to lodge a complaint with the customer care. Thereafter, complainant lodged a complaint with the customer care with a request to rectify the defect of the aforesaid cooler. After reminder an engineer/technician came for rectifying the defect who only changed the fan of the cooler while the defective stand was not replaced on the pretext that the original fan stand is not available. Despite repairing of the aforesaid cooler it was not functioning properly and hence he sent an application dated 27.09.2011 to opposite party no. 2 stating the entire fact as will appear from annexure – 3 but despite that no action has been taken by the opposite party.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written application has been filed stating therein that the technician of the service franchisee inspected the cooler and the MM stand is also broken. The technician changed the blade with new free of cost and asked the complainant that plastic do not cover under warranty and hence it will be changed if he will pay the charge to which the complainant did not agreed.
It has been further asserted that broken of the plastic parts like fan blade and MM stand after one month is not manufacturing defect hence there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1 and 2.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder to written statement of the opposite parties has been filed repeating the fact stated in the complaint petition stating therein that technician inspected the cooler and changed the fan of the cooler but the fan stand has not been replaced on the pretext that the fan stand is not available in the store.
He has further stated that during pendency of this complaint no any technician approached the complainant for rectifying the defect.
From the order sheet dated 01.04.2013 it appears that on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and 3 Shri J.K. Bhagat Advocate was present but no any written statement has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3.
It is the case of the complainant that since the date of purchase i.e. 28.07.2011 the cooler was not functioning to his satisfaction. From the written statement of opposite party no. 1 and 2 as well as complaint petition it is crystal clear that after complaint one technician came and changed only fan blade but MM stand was not changed.
In rejoinder it has been asserted by the complainant that the MM stand was not changed as the same was not available in the store but this fact has not been admitted by the opposite parties.
The assertion of the complainant that since the date of purchase i.e. 28.07.2011 the cooler did not work to his satisfaction despite the changing of the fan blade this shows that the cooler suffers from the manufacturing defect because despite efforts by technician the originality of the cooler could not be restored. This fact is also explicit from annexure – 3 and the complainant had not denied the assertion of the complainant in annexure – 3 by adducing cogent material.
It is needless to say that the complainant had to pursue this case for about six years and during this period, the opposite parties did not remove the defect of the cooler goes to prove the callous attitude of opposite parties and in our opinion by not removing the defect of the cooler the opposite parties have committed deficiency for which all the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible.
For the reason stated above we direct the opposite party no. 3 to pay Rs. 8,500/- (Rs. Eight Thousand Five Hundred only ) to the complainant which they have vide annexure – 1 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing opposite parties will pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 8,500/- (Rs. Eight Thousand Five Hundred only ) till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
