This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Jaya Kishore. Advocate for complainant and of Sri H. Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1; and of Sri.E.Rama Chandar Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a resident of Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam District. He approached the opposite party No.1 and purchased Samsung Split A/C for Rs.24,500/- vide bill No.1968, dt.2-5-2008 vide chasis No.18WXTL, since the date of installation of the said A/C machine, it started giving heavy noise without giving any coolness, when he approached opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 gave evasive reply stating that if any complaint arises, he may lodge online complaint and gave toll free number, accordingly the complainant made a complaint No.840909044585, dt.12-12-2008, but there is no response. The complainant also made another complaint No.8409653835, dt.4-3-2009 and thereafter the service engineer of the opposite parties attended the complaint made by the complainant and informed to the complainant that A/C machine needs to be replaced, accordingly many a time the complainant has been making rounds around the shop of the opposite party No.1 and the service center of the opposite parties and submitted the Xerox copies of the bill and guarantee card, there is no proper response from the opposite parties in replacing the A/C machine. Because of the negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant and his family members are put to great mental agony and hard ship, the complainant further submitted that the very object of purchasing A/C machine has become useless. Having no other option left to him, he approached the Forum for redressal, claiming to return the bill amount of Rs.24,500/-, to award damages of Rs.25,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony suffered by him and to award costs.
2. Along with the complaint, himself filed his affidavit and the following list of documents and the same were got marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3.
Ex.A.1 - Customer details cum warranty card
model name IMEI 0416999.
Ex.A.2 - Credit bill No.1968, for Rs.24,500/-
Ex.a.3 - Customer details cum warranty card
model name 18 WXTL.
3. On being noticed, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counters.
4. The counsel for opposite party No.1 filed counter, admitted that the complainant purchased Samsung split air conditioner from their shop, gave a problem, got rectified the same by sending mechanics. It is denied by the opposite party No.1 that the complainant made false allegations that he made many rounds around them. The opposite party No.1 further stated that he is only a dealer appointed by opposite party No.2 to sell the products of opposite party No.2, if any repairs arise in the products supplied by the opposite party No.2, the complainant may approach the opposite party No.2 for rectifying the defects. Hence, the opposite party No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
The counsel for opposite party No.2 filed counter affidavit by admitting the fact that the complainant purchased Samsung Split Air Conditioner on 2-5-2008, submitted that if any technical problem that will be effected, the complainant may approach the opposite party No.2 instead of opposite party No.1, because the opposite party No.1 is only a dealer and his job comes to an end after the sale of the product and it is rightly advised the complainant to approach them. It is further submitted by the opposite party No.2 that they have attended the complaint lodged by the complainant, which are very minor in nature, does not cover under warranty and replacement. It is further submitted by the opposite party No.2 that the statement of complainant itself is contradictory, on one hand he claims that the air conditioner started giving problem since the date of inception and on the other hand he claims that the complaint is first lodged on 12-12-2008, which itself evidence that the A/C is working in proper condition and due to wear and tear minor problems would arise and the same are rectified promptly. The engineer of opposite party No.2 never informed to the complainant that the machine needs to be replaced and no evidence is filed to indicate that the complainant is making rounds around them. It is submitted by the opposite party No.2 that when there is no manufacturing defect, the question of replacement of air conditioner machine, does not arise. Hence, the opposite party No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
- To What relief?
Point No.1:-
In this case, the complainant purchased Samsung Air Conditioner model No. 18WXTL, on 2-5-2008 from opposite party No.1 for Rs.24,500/-. At the time of purchase, the opposite parties issued warranty. But from the date of installation the A/C machine started giving troubles, the same was informed by the complainant to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to lodge online complaint to opposite party No.2, accordingly he made a complaint No.8409090445585, dt.12-12-2008. But there is no response from opposite party No.2. Again, the complainant made another complaint to opposite party No.2, by complaint No.8409653835 dt.04-03-2009. Thereafter the service engineer of opposite party No.2 attended the complaint made by complainant informed that the said A/C machine needs to be replaced, accordingly he made many a rounds around the opposite party No.1 and service center of opposite party No.2, also submitted photo copies of bill and guarantee card, there is no proper response from opposite parties. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. In the counter of opposite party No.2 submitted that their service engineer never informed to the complainant that the said A/C machine needs to be replaced and when there is no manufacturing defect, the question of replacement of A/C machine does not arise and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
From the documents available on record, we observed that the complainant purchased a new Air Conditioner, which gave troubles from the date of installation, the complainant made complaint on 12-12-2008 for such complaint the opposite party No.2 did not respond and after that the complainant lodge another complaint on 04-03-2009. In response to the complaint dated 04-03-2009, the service engineer of the opposite parties No.2 attended the complaint and repairs of the said A/C machine and informed that the A/C machine needs to be replaced. After that the complainant made many a rounds around the opposite parties, but there is no response from the opposite parties to replace the said A/C machine. It is observed that the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation merely it has money power. And also observed that the complainant purchased a new air conditioner would not be satisfied if it is defective. That the defect is major or minor but the consumer looses satisfaction of having a new air conditioner. The loss of satisfaction could be much more in a case when a person buys the machine with his hard earned money.
The same was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Suchdeva Industries Vs Deep Aggarwal & Others I (2010) CPJ 120 (NC).
Even on receipt of notice, the opposite parties failed to respond either for replacing of new Air Conditioner or payment of cost of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs.24,500/- is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to supply a new air conditioner within one month from the date of the order or refund the amount of Rs.24,500/-(Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest @9% p.a. from the date of purchase (i.e. from 02-05-2008) till the date of realization and also awarded Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards damages and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.
Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 14th day of July, 2011.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined on behalf of complainant:-None-
Witnesses examined on behalf of opposite parties:-None-
Exhibits marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Customer details cum warranty card
model name IMEI 0416999.
Ex.A.2 - Credit bill No.1968, for Rs.24,500/-
Ex.A.3 - Customer details cum warranty card
model name 18 WXTL.
Exhibits marked on behalf of opposite parties: -Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
