Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 11.12.2015
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 of purchase with interest @ 18% per annum from the date 03.04.2012 till full and final payment of such amount.
- 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.
- Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-
In this complaint the complainant has asserted that he has purchased a new Symphony Cooler for domestic use on 03.04.2012 Vide Annexure – 1 from A. K. Enterprises Main Road Bihta. After purchase, he was informed by opposite party no. 3 that the company allow warranty under circumstances for 1 ( one ) year Vide Annexure – 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had used the aforesaid cooler as per instruction given by the staff of opposite party no. 3 after installation of the same by the staff of opposite party no. 2. The main grievance of the complainant is that since the purchase of the aforesaid cooler Vide Annexure – 1, the said cooler has not been working properly and thereafter he requested the opposite party no. 3 to redress his grievance. The complainant also lodged complaint with the customer care cell being Complaint No. RGM – 20G 12015 but no step was taken. He again approached the opposite party no. 3 who wrote on the warranty card ( Annexure – 2 ) that as the customer is not being provided appropriate service hence he may take further action. The complainant has asserted such problem because the cooler is not working properly and it has become useless for him. On behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 a rejoinder has been filed stating there in “ that after all our technician asked warranty card from complainant he said warranty card he has kept somewere, then he asked bill copy he said it is with warranty card. Then our technician said to pay charge of fan blade and said that when he will produce warranty card or bill copy he will get refund his money.”
At this juncture it would be worth mention that the opposite party no. 1 and 2 in Para – 12 and 13 of the written statement has stated that when technician visited the house of the complainant he neither provided warranty card nor paid the charge of fan blade.
It has been asserted by the opposite party no. 1 and 2 that the complainant has filed this to extract money from opposite party no. 2 illegally.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From care perusal of the Annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid cooler after paying price of Rs. 9,100/- ( Rs. Nine Thousand One Hundred only ). Annexure – 1 is dated 30.04.2012. this complaint been filed by the complainant on 13.08.2012 after 4 ( four ) months of purchase.
From bare perusal of warranty card it is crystal clear that warranty for 1 ( one ) year was provided.
It is the case of the complainant that when despite complaining to customer care, the grievance of the complainant was not redressed then opposite party no. 3 made endorsement at the footnote of the Annexure – 2 ( warranty card ) that as the complainant is not getting service hence further action is being taken.
Such type of endorsement appears to have been made at the footnote of Annexure – 2. There is no denial of this fact by opposite party no. 1 and 2 in their reply ( written statement ). The lame excuse taken by the opposite party no. 1 and 2 is that the cooler might have been defective due to improper handling. This suggest that the opposite party no. 1 and 2 were not definite about the mishandling of the cooler by complainant.
From bare of reply ( written statement ) of opposite party no. 1 and 2 it is crystal clear that there was defect in fan belt and other part in the cooler which were not rectified by the technician of opposite party no. 1 and 2 on deferent pretext. The very endorsement of the opposite party no. 3 at the footnote of Annexure – 2 clearly suggest that opposite party no. 3 was also not satisfied. No purpose will be served in repeating the same fact again and again.
The aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties clearly proves deficiency on their part.
For the discussion made above we direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to return the price of the cooler i.e. Rs. 9,100/- Vide Annexure – 1 to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 and 2 will have to pay interest @ 10% on the aforesaid amount till the final payment is made by opposite parties.
Opposite party no. 1 and 2 are further directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.
The complainant is also directed to return the aforesaid cooler to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of aforesaid amount directed above, if not returned earlier.
Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
