This is a complaint filed by one Sri Rathin Ghosh against M/s Fairdeal and M/s Hair India Pvt. Ltd., praying for a direction upon the OPs to replace the defective air conditioner and for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 25,000/-.

Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased an Air Conditioner machine on 09-09-2015 from the OP No. 1 at a cost of Rs. 34,900/-.  It is alleged that since installation, he experienced huge noise emanating from the said machine and so, lodged a complaint with the OP No. 2 on 11-09-2015 and based on such complaint, one service engineer visited his place on 12-09-2015.  As he could not restore the machine to normalcy, another engineer visited his place subsequently.  With no improvement in sight, he lodged another complaint on 15-09-2015, but to no avail.  So, he sent a legal notice on 02-12-2015, but that too did not evoke any positive response.  So, this case.

OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV.  Denying all the material allegations of the complaint, it is stated by this OP that on enquiry relating to the service of the air conditioner, it came to know that OP No. 2 was rendering all kind of services related to the said product to the Complainant, but the Complainant was reluctant to resolve the issue.  Denying any laches on its part, this OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

OP No. 2 also contested the case by filing WV, whereby it denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is further stated by this OP that the Complainant lodged a complaint about excess vibration and so, one technician was deputed to examine the issue, who reported that the AC machine was not installed properly leading to such problem.  The said technician duly conveyed this fact to his seniors, who decided that as the machine was under warranty, it would be replaced.  The decision was duly communicated to the Complainant, who allegedly, due to reasons best known to him, demanded compensation along with replacement.  However, this was not acceptable to this OP and so, it urged the Complainant to agree to its proposal.  It is alleged that the Complainant instead of appreciating the gesture of this OP, lodged another complaint on 14-10-2015.  Based on such complaint, another technician was sent, who reported the same issue.  However, this time too, allegedly, the Complainant stuck to his demand for compensation.  The OP, vide its email dated 26-11-2015 again confirmed that it was ready to replace the air-conditioner machine.  Accordingly, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by him, or not.

Decision with reasons

From the photocopy of Tax Invoice on record, it transpires that the Complainant purchased a Split AC of Haier make of 2 ton capacity from the OP No. 1 on 09-09-2015 at a cost of Rs. 34,900/-.  Admittedly, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs within few days of its installation in the month of September, 2015 itself and based on such complaint, one service engineer visited the place of the Complainant and found that improper installation of the AC machine caused such problem.  We, however, fail to understand if it was indeed so, why no endeavour was at all made from the side of the OPs to install it properly.

Be that as it may, fact remains that OPs are ready to replace the defective AC machine in question with a new one of similar specification in consonance with warranty condition, which is incidentally the primary relief sought for by the Complainant.  Thus, there appears no divergent view amongst the parties in this respect. 

Now, let us ponder as to whether the Complainant is entitled to any other relief, more specifically, compensation and litigation cost, or not. 

In this regard, it is stated by the OP No. 2 that it offered the Complainant to replace the AC machine with a new one, but the Complainant demanded compensation besides replacement of the AC machine which was not acceptable to it.  It is even claimed by this OP that it sent an email in this regard on 26-11-2015.  On the other hand, it is alleged by the Complainant though the service engineer of the OP no. 2 verbally assured to replace the defective AC machine, it did not take any positive step.

It is noteworthy that although the OP No. 2 claimed to have made repeated requests to the Complainant to replace the AC machine, it has not placed on record any material proof to substantiate such claim.  Accordingly, we find no reason whatsoever to accept such claim at its face value.

Fact remains that, the AC developed problem within few days of its installation and the OP No. 2 did not replace the faulty AC machine even after service of due legal notice upon it by the Complainant.  Thus, the very purpose of having the AC machine got defeated.  Accordingly, we hold the OPs liable to pay compensation and litigation cost.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/107/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.  OPs are directed to replace the defective air conditioner machine with a new one of similar specification and install the same free of cost within two months of this order. They are also jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and another sum of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost within the aforesaid stipulated time frame of two months.