Orissa

Debagarh

CC/35/2019

Siddeswar Guru, aged about 42 yrs., S/O-Indubhusan Guru - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tanu Ram Mahanta, aged about 45 yrs., S/O-Muchi ram Mahanta - Opp.Party(s)

12 Nov 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH.

C.C.NO. 35/2019

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Siddheswar Guru, aged about 42 Yrs,

S/O-Indubhusan Guru,

R/O.-Gurusahi, Ward No-2,Near Park Market,

P.O/P.S/Dist/-Deogarh, Orissa.                                                                                            ….        Complainant.

Versus

1. Tanu Ram Mahanta, aged about 45 years,

          S/O- Muchi Ram Mahanta,

         At-Behind Chinmay  Vidyalaya,

         P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh, (Orissa)

2.  The Service Manager( Whirlpool India Limited),

          Authorised Service Centre

          Mahanadi Refrigeration,

         Near Ashapali School,

         Opp.Womens’ Police Station,

         Sambalpur-768001

3. The Manufacturer,

    Whirlpool India Limited

    H.O,28, Faridabad NIT,

     Faridabad – 121001.                                                                                              .… Opposite Parties.

  

Counsels

For the Complainant:-                    Nemo

For the O.P-1:-                               None

For O.P-2&3:-                               Sri H.R Kedia and Associates, Advocate.

 

DATE OF HEARING: 06.11.2020, DATE OF ORDER: 12.11.2020.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant owned one Whirlpool Split Air Conditioner (2 Ton) vide model no- SAK24K40CSO by paying Rs.31,000/- in the year 2010 which was warranted for 5 years from the date of purchase. On observed some cooling problems on dtd. 15.04.2019 in the said A.C, he made contact to the O.P-1 for repairing. On  inspection the O.P-1 found the A.C Compressor is defective and replaced it for which the Complainant paid Rs.12,000/-.Thereafter the A.C functioned properly for one day but on the next day i.e on dtd. 16.04.2019 the same problem is existed as there is no cooling at all. The O.P-1 again inspected the A.C but could not find any fault. On dtd. 09.05.2019 the Complainant made contact with Whirlpool Customer Care who on dtd.15.05.2019 sent two service personnel from Authorized service station at Sambalpur to attend the call, inspected the A.C, and opined that the cooling problem is due to leakage of Gas. As the service personnel were not equipped with sufficient tools they assured to come on some other day to repair the same and collected an amount of Rs.200/- towards visiting charges from the Complainant.  On dtd.20.05.2019, they came, refilled gas and found that the Compressor is defective which needs to change. Earlier the O.P-1 had changed a new Compressor which is presumed to be defect free. But on dtd. 08.06.2019 the Compressor fitted by O.P-1 was replaced and another Compressor from O.P-2 is fitted and the Condenser is repaired with gas filling.  This time also no cooling achieved and the Complainant realized that the earlier Compressor fitted by O.P-1, as well as the Condenser was not defective. The Service Personnel received Rs.15,500/-from the Complainant towards Compressor replacement ,Condenser repairing, Gas Charging and Service Charges and they left. In spite of repeated attempt the Service Personnel could not be able to remove the defects and till date the A.C is in idle condition for which the Complainant is now going through financial loss, mental pain and agony since the incident. The O.P-1 & O.P-2 has not refunded the amount which is paid by the Complainant towards replacement of parts though the old parts were not defective.

According to the  O.P-2 & 3, the Complainant has purchased a Whirlpool 2 Ton split A.C model no-SAK24KOCSO in the year 2010  and never alleged manufacturing defect since 9 years. On dtd. 15.04.2019, the Complainant after experiencing the defect entrusted O.P-1 who is a different person than the dealer and authorised person and paid Rs.12,000/- for replacement of new Compressor which did not function and no cooling results. Thereafter the Complainant approached O.P-2 for the first time on dtd. 09.05.2019 who on dtd.15.05.2019 deputed two skilled technicians to the premises of the Complainant.  On preliminary checking they found that machine gas leakage, prepared a job card, note down the problems as narrated by the Complainant and took his signature who on request paid Rs.200/-to the technicians. On next visit on dtd. 20.05.2019 to the house of the Complainant, they filled the gas but the A.C did not start. On checking the Compressor, they found that the old compressor (No. HC6Vi4023478)  was not working fitted by the O.P-1 and left for Sambalpur. They came again on dtd. 19.06.2019, replaced the same but found that the Condenser was not working and a new condenser needs to be installed. On hearing this the Complainant became angry and misbehaved the technicians and did not allow them to take their tool bag having tools worth Rs.10,000/-. There after the Owner of the O.P-2 made contact with the Complainant and agreed to return Rs.15,500/-paid by him and requested him to return the tool bag to the O.P-2. POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service and unfair trade practice to the Complainant?

 

From the above discussion and material available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of consumer of the O.Ps as he has paid Rs. 12,000/- and Rs.15,500/- to the O.P-1 and O.P-2 for availing services from them for his defective Air Conditioner. In the first case though the O.P-1 has took back the Compressor which he has fitted to the defective A.C of the Complainant, he should return the price he received towards the same. Secondly the O.P-2 replaced the Compressor fitted by the O.P-1 presuming it defective and fitted another Compressor from it’s own. But later on when he ascertained that the fault is in the condenser, he did not refund the price (Rs.15,500/-) taken from the Complainant. In the both the instances the O.P-1 & 2 has kept the money of the Complainant without providing any services which proves “Deficiency in Service” and “Unfair Trade Practice” committed to the Complainant. Again the responsibility of O.P-2 is to provide proper services against the product manufactured by the O.P-3, hence the O.P-3 is liable for latches of O.P-2 towards its customer and deprive them for essential after sale services. Further the O.P-2 has not produced any witness or documentary evidence in support of his allegation made against the Complainant towards snatching the Tool Bag from the service personnel, so it is not considered. Hence we order as under:-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 & 2 are is directed to refund Rs. 12,000/- and Rs.15,500/- respectively to the Complainant. Further the O.P-2 & 3  are jointly and severally directed the pay Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand) as compensation for mental pain and agony along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 12^nd day of November 2020 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

   I agree,                                              I agree,         

 

MEMBER.(W)                                 MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                               by me. 

 

                                                          PRESIDENT